Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an Order to authorise the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board to acquire additional lands and to construct further works, to repeal the provisions of the Forth Road Bridge Orders 1947 to 1954 relative to the financing of the undertaking of the said Board and to enact new provisions with respect thereto, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any grant or other payment made or sum provided by the Secretary of State under the said Act; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the said, Act.

Resolution agreed to.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for Consideration read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered:

Question amended, by leaving out the words "now considered" and adding the words "committed to a Committee of the whole House"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—instead thereof, and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CAMEROONS

United Kingdom Information Officers

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British information officers there are in the British Cameroons; what staffs and offices they have; what journeys they have to take in the course of their work; and if he will consider an increase in the number of British information officers there adequate to the increasing volume of trade and industry there.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): There are no United Kingdom information officers stationed in the Cameroons.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister consider that there should be such officers in the Cameroons? Various foreign nations are competing successfully with British trade and industry in that area and, therefore, steps should be taken to maintain and protect British trade and industry there.

Mr. Profumo: I take the point that the hon. and learned Member makes. There is, however, a United Kingdom Information Office in Lagos, through which United Kingdom information material is available for distribution in the Cameroons.

Mr. Hughes: Why not have an office in the Cameroons?

Mr. Profumo: We have thought it necessary to concentrate on certain priorities, particularly in the emerging territories.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Roads (Development)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the provision of more and better roads is a condition precedent to the development and transport of industry in Nigeria, and that the delay in taking immediate steps to effect this is putting undue burdens on the Governments of Nigeria; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Profumo: The need for more and better roads is fully recognised here as well as in Nigeria. The Nigerian Governments have all undertaken large schemes of road development involving a total planned expenditure of more than £35 million during the period 1955–60. Colonial Development and Welfare grants of over £9 million have been made towards this.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that the road development there is not sufficient and that it is very unfair to leave over those tasks until independence is granted in Nigeria and thereby to put large financial and other burdens on the new Government?

Mr. Profumo: I am advised that development work generally in Nigeria at the present time is limited less by financial considerations than by the physical capacity to undertake the necessary work.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Geology Students (Holiday Employment)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take steps to encourage university geology students to find holiday employment in African Colonies, so as to increase the possibility of searching for uranium deposits.

Mr. Profumo: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given last Thursday, 23rd January, to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving).

Mr. Russell: In that reply, my hon. Friend did not say very much about the use of the students in the holidays. Could he say a word about them?

Mr. Profumo: If my hon. Friend reads that reply again, he will see that I have covered the general problem as well as I could. We are taking this matter seriously into consideration.

Universities (Departments of Geology)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which universities or university colleges in Colonial Territories have a department of geology.

Mr. Profumo: I understand that there is a separate department of geology in

the University of Malaya, a joint department of geography and geology in the University of Hong Kong and a lectureship in geology within the department of geography in the University College of East Africa.

Mr. Russell: In view of the importance of encouraging the search for uranium ores as much as possible, will my hon. Friend do everything he can to encourage more universities to set up geological departments?

Mr. Profumo: My hon. Friend will realise that university colleges are autonomous bodies and that the responsibility for deciding what departments or courses are needed rests with their councils.

Afro-Asian Conference (Travel Permits)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds representatives of national movements in Colonial Territories were refused permission to attend the Afro-Asian Conference in Cairo; and what persons were subjected to this restriction.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The decisions referred to were taken by the Governments concerned in the exercise of their discretion. No doubt they felt that attendance at this Communist-inspired meeting would not be in the best interest of their territories, a view which I would regard as entirely justified. Persons from several African territories were refused facilities for travel.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it proper that we should assume these God-like obligations of deciding where a person shall and shall not go, what he shall or shall not hear or see? Is the Secretary of State aware that the effect of these prohibitions has been to bring support to the Cairo Conference and a meeting of 7,000 in Zanzibar to a much greater degree than permission to these delegations would have aroused?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not agree at all. These God-like responsibilities, as the hon. Member calls them, are spread over a number of very responsible Governments.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that what is forbidden becomes much more attractive?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not always.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Food Production

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the last two years in making British Honduras less dependent on imported foodstuffs.

Mr. Profumo: A pilot scheme for the mechanical cultivation of rice has been most successful, and has now reached the stage where it is ready for expansion. Sufficient land and irrigation are now available to produce all the rice required in the Territory. The Government have also assisted the livestock industry, both by providing finance for improvement of pasture and by subsidising the import of animals of approved stock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what advice has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland on the execution of the provisions of the Constitution Amendment Act and the proposals contained in the Federal Electoral Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: In view of what has happened in the Central African Federation since the original Bill amending the constitution was introduced, the deep antagonism of the African population towards these Measures, and the renewed appeal of the African Affairs Board, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this attitude before it is too late?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another matter. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Sudanese (Arrests)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many Sudanese living in Uganda have

been arrested between 1st November, 1957, and 31st December, 1957; how many have been convicted and how many released; how many were still under arrest awaiting trial on 1st January, 1958; and what charges have been brought against them;
(2) whether Lacaha Lomiang and John Itilai are still under arrest in Uganda; and on what charges they are being held.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No Sudanese living in Uganda were arrested in November or December, 1957, none was convicted and none released. On 1st January, 1958, three Sudanese were under arrest, all charged with murder and attempted murder. One, John Lobur Lopiti—possibly the same man as John Itilai, who is not known—was released on 6th January. Two Sudanese, one being Lachaka Lomiang, remain in custody pending the decisions of the courts on applications for their extradition to the Sudan. An application on behalf of Lachaka for a writ of habeas corpus is sub judice.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a certain degree of disquiet at the fact that Sudanese are held under arrest in Uganda for political crimes which they may have committed in southern Sudan during the unrest there a year ago? Can he assure me that, as his Answer seems to indicate, this is not the case?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am also concerned about the delay in settling this matter, due to the difficulty of obtaining the necessary documents and evidence from the Sudan, but we are anxious to behave as good neighbours to the Sudan.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Kiama Kia Muingi

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the declared political objects of Kiama Kia Muingi in Kenya; to what extent its members have committed acts of violence; on what grounds it has been made illegal; and the maximum penalties for membership and leadership of the organisation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Kiama Kia Muingi is a secret society and has no publicly declared objects. Its aims are, however, known to be similar to those of Mau


Mau, and are directed to undermining the position of Africans who have helped to keep the peace. Since these Africans form the backbone of administration in the Central Province, the society is a danger to good government, and for this reason it was declared unlawful. It has not been allowed to develop to the stage where its members, as such, have committed violence. The maximum penalties for membership and leadership of an unlawful society are 7 and 14 years' imprisonment respectively.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the imposition of 7 years' imprisonment for membership of an organisation and 14 years' imprisonment on leaders of an organisation whose members have taken a vow of non-violence is the best method to create good relations between the races in Kenya?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member, perhaps not for the first time, has got his facts wrong. The Committee of K.K.M. has been compiling a list of Africans and their families who helped in the fight against Mau Mau, with a view to revenge later. Eighty-five were originally arrested, of whom 42 were released. Of the remainder, 13 were restricted to living in certain districts and others were restricted to villages within their district. No one has been prosecuted for membership or leadership. The Government of Kenya and I do not intend that this organisation should become an extensive threat.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that all this has developed because of unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the 10,000 or 20,000 detainees, now coming back to Kiambu and other parts of the territory, who are unemployed? Will he do something about that source of discontent?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My attention is constantly directed to that, and so is that of the Government of Kenya. I hope that the hon. Member will direct his attention to the 51,000 Kikuyu who have been found work in Kiambu.

Prohibited Immigrants

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the numbers of people, Europeans, Asians and Africans, respectively, who have been declared prohibited immigrants in Kenya during the five year period 1953–57.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for Europeans and Asians from 1953 to 1956. Figures for 1957 are not yet available. Separate figures for Africans are not available.

Mr. Johnson: I look forward to seeing those figures. Can the Minister confirm that the Government's actual powers in this field are just like those of a headmaster expelling boys from school? Is it not the fact that the Minister himself automatically confirms any decision made by the Governor? Can the Minister tell us in this House why it sometimes happens that people like Mr. George Hauser or Mr. Basil Davidson are not allowed to enter these territories?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be grossly improper for me to disclose confidential information that passes between the Governor and myself. The most I can say is that the Governor arrived at a decision after consultation with the Executive Council, on which there are many unofficial representatives.

Following is the information—


Year
Europeans: orders made and cancelled
Asians: orders made and cancelled


1953
…
52 (7 cancelled)
83 (3 cancelled)


1954
…
32 (4 cancelled)
20 (2 cancelled)


1955
…
57 (2 cancelled)
47 (2 cancelled)


1956
…
82 (6 cancelled)
215 (2 cancelled)

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Civil Service (Salaries and Conditions)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the discontent felt by the majority of civil servants in Mauritius respecting the recommendations of the Working Party which have prejudiced acquired rights of serving officers regarding conditions of service and leave privileges; and whether, before taking any irrevocable step, he will have this matter fully discussed with the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Profumo: I am aware that certain differences of opinion which normally arise from a salaries revision have resulted in political controversy. Ministers in Mauritius have, however, shown


courage in dealing with these in a non-party spirit. Such problems as arise out of the detailed implementation of the Working Party's recommendations are now being discussed in a friendly atmosphere in the Central Whitley Council in Mauritius.

Mr. Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that that blah-blah reply is very far removed from the truth, in so far as the trade unions themselves have made representations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am making it clear that the hon. Gentleman is making an honest statement as far as he is concerned. I am speaking of the sort of things given to him. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that our complaint here is on a matter of high principle in trade unionism—that trade unions should be allowed to negotiate collectively? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there has been interrogation and victimisation of individual people to get them to sign on the dotted line? Have not the Government enough trouble with trade unions at home without seeking it abroad?

Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I must reply at some length. I understand the hon. Member's problem, but he is suffering under some misconception. There has not been negotiation in the normal terms which he has in mind. A salaries Commission was set up under a Commissioner. The Commission made a Report and a Working Party was set up to go into the whole structure of the Civil Service in Mauritius. These two bodies reported to the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, and the Reports were eventually accepted. The result of these Reports, as is always done in these conditions in Colonial Territories, were presented to those concerned and they were given a six weeks' period to decide whether they liked to stay on the old terms or come under the new terms. Therefore, there was no negotiation in the way in which the hon. Member thinks there has been.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not that the whole weakness and the cause of the trouble? Is it not the case that a Federation civil servant was not included as a member of the Working Party, that the civil servants had no opportunity of making representations, and that an attempt was made to implement this so-called settlement without negotiation with them? Does the

hon. Gentleman not think that this points to a great weakness which needs to be removed?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think so. There is a basic misconception here. There has been no departure from normal practice in these matters in Colonial Territories. The procedure was adopted in exactly the same way last year in Fiji and only recently in Somaliland, where a six weeks' period was also given. This procedure is similar to that of the Chorley and Priestley Commissions in this country.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, how can it be similar to the Priestley Commission in this country, whose Report was discussed with the trade union movement? Is not the complaint here that after the Report was made it was implemented without discussion with the Civil Service trade union?

Mr. Profumo: It would be dangerous to draw too close an analogy, because the Civil Service trade union there represents only 15 per cent. of the Civil Service. It is very immature indeed. There have been negotiations but at one stage the staff side walked out of the negotiations. It is because there are still detailed problems to be settled that the Government of Mauritius, including all the new Ministers, have decided to leave the Working Party set up so that there can be negotiations on small outstanding matters. I believe that this matter has been blown up by political agitation in Mauritius and I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to lend his hand to that.

Mr. Pannell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, if the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) wishes to follow up this matter, he should give notice to raise it on the Adjournment.

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain the differentiation of treatment meted out to higher technical officers in Mauritius with an increase of 28 per cent. against the grant of only 9 per cent. to junior civil servants.

Mr. Profumo: Before the recent revision, the salaries and conditions of service of higher administrative, professional and technical officers in Mauritius did not bear comparison with those offered in other similar territories or in comparable employment outside Government


service in Mauritius itself. Apart from any consideration of equity it was rapidly becoming impossible to attract into the Mauritius Government Service an adequate number of officers of the required ability and experience to fill these posts.
Perhaps it will put the matter into perspective for the hon. Member if I tell him that since 1939 the salaries of the higher grades have risen by an average of about 60 per cent. while the salaries of the lower grades have risen by about 200 per cent.

Mr. Pannell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it needed the threat of a general strike on the island to get the Working Party set up at all, and that it needed the intervention of the Trades Union Congress here and of the I.C.F.T.U. to get that threat of a general strike withdrawn? Is he also aware that they are dealing with the higher grades purely on a matter of professional competence, but that they appear to be dealing with the lower grades on the basis of the law of supply and demand?

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I should like to deal with the conduct of the Postmaster-General in connection with these revisions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am asking the Minister a question, not hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I ask the Minister why he has reduced by three weeks the time-limit fixed by the Government themselves for some of these employees to opt for the new revised standards and scales of wages? Why has he taken it upon himself to reduce that limit?

Mr. Profumo: The Postmaster-General invited officers of his Department who elected to opt for the new conditions to do so by 10th January, in order that their pay sheets might be prepared in good time. The question whether they signed the option form or not was resolved by the staff side advising its members to sign.

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the increase for the lower income groups of civil servants in Mauritius is more than offset by a reduction of local and overseas leave privileges; and why the Government have

fixed a time limit for acceptance of option forms by 31st January, 1958.

Mr. Profumo: The lower grades of the Mauritius Civil Service have received an increase of between 18 and 50 per cent. of their existing previous basic pay. The previous cost of living allowance has been consolidated with basic pay giving an average increase of about 6 per cent. in actual cash earned and increasing pension entitlement by an average of some 15 per cent. A five-day week is to be introduced to the extent that this is practicable. In these circumstances I feel sure that the hon. Member will agree with the decision taken by Mauritius Ministers that some curtailment of existing leave privileges—which amount at present to sixty days a year for the lower grades—is not unreasonable and is more than offset by increases in salary and pensionable earnings.
So far as the time-limit for completing the option forms is concerned, six weeks was thought to be sufficient time to enable the officers concerned to come to a decision.

Mr. Pannell: Why was the date of opting apparently fixed deliberately at least seven days before the trade unions were known to be meeting to consider this offer? Why did the Postmaster-General anticipate that by three weeks? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, before he gives me any more replies, that I have been pursuing this matter with his Department for four months, that I have been acting in an official capacity and have all the evidence he has received?

Mr. Profumo: I have given fairly full replies to the hon. Gentleman's Questions, and as this matter is now back, where it should be, with the Whitley Council, I hope that we shall not try to stir up any political agitation here—I know that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to do so—because it is back in its proper channels and we ought to leave it there.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not it clear from the answers given that there is a very imperfect understanding in the island of how the Whitley machinery ought to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Under-Secretary made that clear. Will he consider sending out to the island somebody expert in the administration


and running of Whitley machinery, so that both sides may know what is within its ambit?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If I have not been able to explain clearly enough, that is my fault, but there is no misunderstanding of the Whitley machinery. Misunderstanding has arisen from the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend imagine that something has taken place which has not taken place. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, a member of the Trades Union Congress has recently been to Mauritius, and this happened following the visit which I paid there myself. It has been extremely valuable, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. In view of the nature of the reply, which is completely unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I will pursue this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS

General Strike

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given by the Government of the Bahamas to the request of the taxi-drivers' union that an independent chairman be appointed for an arbitration on the general strike.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before the strike, agreement had been reached in the dispute between the Bahamas Taxi-Cab Union—an association of taxi owners and drivers—and the tour companies on 19 of the 20 points under dispute. At the request of the parties, who agreed to accept his choice, the Governor named a three-man Arbitral Tribunal which he was prepared to appoint to settle this one outstanding matter. The Taxi-Cab Union then raised objections to the persons nominated and requested that the Governor-in-Council should appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Before this proposal could be considered by the Governor-in-Council the union called for a strike of hotel employees, which led to the general strike. The Governor is prepared to set up a Tribunal, with of course an independent chairman, if the parties will agree on the points to be arbitrated and to accept the findings.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister know whether the strike has ended today, and if so, on what terms? Will the proposed transport authority prohibit the colour bar, and is it not true, although the Minister has denied it on several occasions in this House, that a colour bar does exist in the Bahamas? Also, was not the origin of the strike the fact that the taxi-drivers were being driven out of the one well-paid job which the colour bar had not yet entered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will answer general Questions afterwards on the strike itself.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons the British frigate "Ulster" was sent to the Bahamas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the situation arising from the general strike at Nassau.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the position arising out of the strike in the Bahamas.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the deteriorating situation in the Bahamas; and whether he will appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate conditions upon the islands.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The strike in the Bahamas originated from a dispute between two conflicting commercial interests and not from one between employers and employees. Stoppages of work by employees in public and private services, including the hotels, have since taken place. There has been no violence or disorder but as a precaution a company of troops has been flown in from Jamaica. This has provided much needed relief for the local police. H.M.S. "Ulster" went to Nassau for the purpose of providing technicians to maintain essential services. Utilities such as electricity and water have continued uninterrupted. Meetings have been taking place between representatives of the parties involved under impartial chairmanship. The Governor has been making continuous efforts to get the parties concerned to effect a settlement and, although I have no details as yet, I am glad to say that the strike is ending today.
The Progressive Liberal Party has asked me to appoint a Royal Commission. I feel that far-reaching action of this kind can best be considered when we are properly over the immediate dispute and the local atmosphere is calmer. I am not in a position to make a statement on this point today.

Mr. Allaun: May I repeat the question I asked a few moments ago and ask, in particular, if the colour bar did not lead to the exclusion of coloured men from this job? Would the right hon. Gentleman himself support the setting up of a Royal Commission, which is recommended not only by the body mentioned but also by the Caribbean representative of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already dealt with that in my answer.

Mr. J. Hynd: Since the Minister himself used the formula that this dispute was originally between two commercial interests and not between workers and employers, does not the fact that the strike was supported by all the organised workers in the Colony indicate that this goes very much deeper? Does he not realise, therefore, that it is high time we looked into the entire question of the legal recognition of trade unions in that territory? Will he give serious consideration to the question of appointing a Royal Commission or some other form of official inquiry into the question of trade union status, race relations and a new constitution giving more equitable representation in the Assembly?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree that some of the considerations which the hon. Member has advanced are very relevant and make a decision one way or the other all the more important. It is because of some of the issues which he mentioned that I would like time and a calmer atmosphere in which to make up my mind.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is not the action of the taxi drivers a symptom of deep underlying conditions—bad housing, bad wages, the colour bar, no coloured man on the Executive Council? Does not the constitution need to be considered and ought there not to be a Commission, on the lines of the Elliot Commission

to Kenya, with power to ask questions and to take evidence and to prepare a White Paper for the House to examine?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be oversimplifying the matter to dismiss it quite like that. The rights and wrongs in this matter are by no means exclusively on any one side In the talks, agreement was reached on 19 of the 20 issues, which would have led to a large increase in work for the Taxi-Cab Union, nut I am anxious not to anticipate any decision which I may reach by giving off-the-cuff answers today.

Franchise and Constituencies

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposal he has in mind for extending the basis of the franchise in the Bahamas.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will call the attention of the Governor of the Bahamas to the desirability of establishing adult suffrage and equal constituencies in the Bahamas, when questions of constitutional reforms are being considered there.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Electoral legislation is a matter for the Bahamas Legislature. Proposals for changes in the present basis of the franchise have not so far had the support of a majority in that Legislature. I nevertheless took the opportunity to discuss the question of franchise and constituencies when delegations from the Bahamas House of Assembly had talks with me on constitutional matters last November.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has no power to intervene except by influence, because if that is so, the position is desperate, because the people in power at present will continue to be a self-perpetuating oligarchy unless something can be done to persuade them that it is in their financial interests, possibly, to do something to extend the franchise, abolish pocket boroughs and abolish plural voting?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The constitution in the Bahamas is very ancient and sometimes the most effective voice can be spoken by those whose power is limited to influence.

Mr. D. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off quite as easily as that. He knows better than anyone else in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—that the composition of the Bahamas Legislative Council—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question, not make a speech.

Mr. Jones: I was about to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the constitution is so archaic that he is not likely to get any consent from the present Legislative Council to make any alterations. Will he agree that it is in such a deplorable state and that constituencies vary so much, from very small to very big, that some action will have to be taken if there is to be peace and quiet in the Bahamas?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Like many old constitutions, it could do with some changes here and there.

Mr. Callaghan: Again, do not all these questions and answers reveal that there is far more in the dispute than a difference between two commercial interests? While acknowledging that the Colonial Secretary has kept the way open by not accepting or rejecting the idea of an inquiry, can he tell us how soon it will be before he is ready to give an answer on that matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure hat the hon. Member will keep on prodding me and I hope to make up my mind fairly soon.

Trade Unions

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to encourage the formation and recognition of trades unions in the Bahamas; and whether the present staff of the Labour Department there includes anyone in a senior position with experience of trade union organisation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Bahamas Trade Unions Act of 1943 provides for the formation and registration of unions. Trade unions are of recent growth and their recognition is primarily a matter for the two sides of industry. There is a Labour

Conciliation Board on which trade unions are represented but there is no labour department.

Mrs. White: In the circumstances in which the union of the workers in the largest industry, the hotel industry, is not recognised, is it not desirable to consider setting up a Labour Department and should not an official of some experience who might help in these matters be sent there?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Two people who went from my Department last year made it clear that in their view there should be a Labour Department. That is my view and that of the Governor of the Bahamas, but so far it has not been carried by the Legislature. I very much hope that our joint views will have some influence.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Tobacco Industry (Co-operative Societies)

Mr. Owen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason Africans are not permitted to form cooperative societies in the tobacco industry in Nyasaland.

Mr. Profumo: The marketing of the African tobacco crop is the responsibility of the Agricultural Production and Marketing Board. It is empowered to appoint agents but has not as yet so appointed any African co-operative society because tobacco processing and marketing need a particularly high degree of technical administrative and commercial knowledge, which African co-operatives in Nyasaland have not yet acquired.

Mr. Owen: Is not the Minister aware that Africans can grow tobacco only upon Trust land, that all agricultural products are controlled by the marketing and production boards, and that consequently their produce is directed to specified markets at lower prices? Is not the set-up calculated to maintain vested interests for the Europeans, to the detriment of the economic development of the African people?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I do not think I can add anything to the Answer I have already given the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Mr. Basil Davidson (Entry Visas)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has given his approval to the action of the Governments of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika refusing entry visas for Mr. Basil Davidson.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on 23rd January.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Davidson, a man who gave very good service to this country during the war and who exposed the full horror of the Soviet aggression in Hungary, is being treated very badly indeed? Does he not see that the action of the Trustee and Colonial Governments in refusing him admission is usurping the functions of the Colonial Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly my functions have not been usurped. This is a matter for the discretion of the East African Governments and I have told them that I see no reason to interfere in their decisions. Like many of my predecessors on the other side of the House, I am not prepared to give any reasons why I have come to my conclusions.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very widespread suspicion that it is because Mr. Basil Davidson is a well-known Socialist that he is being excluded from these territories and that as long as the Colonial Secretary maintains his attitude, he is smearing this man by the assumption that he is a Communist, although he has refused to avow it? Will he take it from those of us who know him well that Mr. Davidson is not a Communist, has not been a Communist, and has no sympathies with that party?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While refusing to be drawn into a discussion of the reasons for my decision, I can certainly say that it is not because of any association with the party opposite.

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Barristers and Solicitors

Mr. MacDermot: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the qualifications for admission as an advocate of the Bar in Uganda, Tanganyika, and Kenya, respectively, of a person qualified as a barrister or solicitor in England; what forms of employment are permitted during any period of residential qualification; what financial assistance is granted by the Colonial Governments concerned; and what is the basis for differences in qualifications in the three Territories.

Mr. Profumo: With regard to the first part of the Question, as the conditions governing admission are long and varied, I am placing copies of the relevant Advocates Ordinances in the Library.
My right hon. Friend is consulting the Acting Governor of Kenya and the Governors of Tanganyika and Uganda on the last three parts of the Question and will write to the hon. Member when their replies have been received.

Mr. MacDermot: I thank the Minister for that statement. Is he aware that the regulations, of which I hope we shall get full details, are creating a very real problem for Africans who come here in order to qualify and, having done so, are in a position where they would be allowed to practise in our courts but, on returning to their own countries, have to wait for a further substantial period—when they are not able to earn their living—before they are able to practise in the courts in their own countries? Can he look carefully into the question whether or not some change should be made in the relevant ordinances?

Mr. Profumo: It would be best to wait until the hon. Gentleman has read the ordinances in the Library, and the letter which, I have told him, my right hon. Friend will send him. If he is then in any doubt I shall be only too glad to try to answer another Question on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Situation

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for ending the present deadlock in Cyprus.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the partition of Cyprus is still regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a possible solution for the future of the island.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not yet in a position to add to my reply of 21st January.

Mr. K. Robinson: In view of the deteriorating situation in the island, will the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a statement?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, I cannot say that.

Mrs. L. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the absence of any statement is giving rise to great strains upon the island? Can he not at least refute the statement in this morning's Daily Herald that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to the stationing of Turkish troops in the island?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is the presence of certain statements, notably one made at Brighton not long ago, which has added to the tension.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to assure the Turkish-speaking people of Cyprus that Her Majesty's Government intends to continue to protect their interests when considering the methods of settling the problems of Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the statement at Brighton, to which he has referred, has made a solution of any problem in Cyprus extremely difficult? Does not he agree that recent events show the danger of the Turkish population in Cyprus losing its confidence in Britain? Will he take every opportunity to reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's declaration that they intend to support the rights of all minorities in Cyprus, including the right of self-determination?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would certainly say that a relevant consideration in Turkish minds is the attitude of possible alternative Governments in Britain.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it possible to ask the Colonial Secretary to treat this subject seriously and to refrain from trying to score party points, as he has tried to do several times, on issues of this kind? Will he answer my hon. Friend's perfectly fair question and give a denial to the statement in this morning's Daily Herald about what is supposed to be the Government's plan?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No responsible Minister would ever confirm or deny statements which appeared in the public Press during the process of highly intricate and inevitably secret negotiations.

Later—

Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. In relation to Question No. 26, may I have permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of Turkish troops going to the island of Cyprus, a Crown Colony?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that we have passed that Question. I will accept the hon. Member's notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. W. Yates: Further to that point of order. May I have your leave, Mr. Speaker, to raise the question of Turkish troops going to the Crown Colony of Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker: We have passed from that Question. I said that I would accept the statement of the hon. Member.

Emergency Expenditure

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what expenditure he has incurred in maintaining law and order in Cyprus from the time of the decision to make Cyprus a military base until the end of 1957.

Mr. Profumo: A sum of £5,550,000 has been provided in the Colonial Service Vote since 1956–57, the first year in which a grant-in-aid of emergency expenditure was made.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what we have got for this £5,550,000?

Mr. Profumo: The tragedy of Cyprus cannot be measured wholly in terms of finance.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Chinese Refugees

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has received concerning United Nations proposals to help the Hong Kong Government over the refugee problem.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions were reached by the United Nations Refugee Emergency Fund Committee on the eligibility of the Chinese refugees in Hong Kong for assistance; and to what extent the Government of Hong Kong has implemented those decisions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Executive Committee of the United Nations Relief Emergency Fund referred the question of international aid for Chinese refugees in Hong Kong to the General Assembly of the United Nations without itself reaching a decision. Last November, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recognising that the problem is one of international concern and appealing to Member Governments and non-governmental organisations to give all possible assistance.
This resolution did not call for any special action by the Hong Kong Government, which has long been doing everything within its power for these refugees.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the former Governor stated that no less than £19 million was spent by the Hong Kong Government in helping refugees which might otherwise have gone to improve welfare conditions in the Colony? Does he realise how very strongly the people in Hong Kong hope that something will be done to take this burden from them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise the extraordinary ingenuity and generosity with which the Government and people of Hong Kong have tackled this problem, which is largely international, and I fully understand their feelings.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that action for the relief of refugees is being impeded because of the confusion created by the Hambro Report in which there is a question as to whether a refugee is a de jure or a de facto refugee? Does not

the Secretary of State agree that these people are refugees who need help and who need it now? Will he take steps to have this matter raised again in the General Assembly of the United Nations when it comes to deal with the future activities of the High Commissioner for Refugees?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with the hon. Member that one of the complications in this matter is that, in the eyes of those Governments which still recognise the Nationalist authorities as the legal Government of China, these unfortunate people are not refugees. I hope that no one will allow legal points of that kind to hold up help where it is needed.

European Common Market

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to ensure that Hong Kong will be included in the Common Market; and what consultation the Hong Kong Government have had on this subject with Chinese and British businessmen in Hong Kong.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Treaty of Rome provides for the association with the Common Market only of overseas territories of the Contracting Parties and the United Kingdom is, of course, not one of these. If my hon. Friend has in mind the inclusion of Hong Kong in the proposed European Free Trade Area the position remains as explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) on 16th July last. Hong Kong, as an industrial producer, would stand to gain by being included, but it is not practicable to deal with her case in isolation from that of other territories. Representatives of the General and Chinese Chambers of Commerce in Hong Kong, and of local manufacturers, general commercial and financial interests there, have been consulted confidentially through the medium of the Trade and Industry Advisory Committee in Hong Kong.

Mr. Teeling: While fully realising what my right hon. Friend has explained in his Answer, may I ask if it is not true that we are, up to a point, if not trying to join the Common Market, at least trying to come to some arrangement with it? If that is the case, would not we have to


insist that our Colonies, just as much as the Colonies of the six countries in it, were included?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that raises a greatly different issue, but it is highly important to get clear in the heads of Members of Parliament the difference between the Common Market and the proposed Free Trade Area.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Financial Aid

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is his policy that the £25 million mentioned in his recent message to the Prime Minister of Malta will be forthcoming over a five-year period plus generous assistance for health and education, irrespective of whether Malta accepts integration and three Members in the British Parliament or not.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The financial arrangements negotiated with Mr. Mintoff were designed as part of the integration plan. As I told my hon. Friend on 15th February, 1956, and repeated in the debate on 26th March, 1956, the July, 1955 declaration will remain valid whatever the decision on integration may he. But the extent and form of financial aid cannot be entirely dissociated from the prevailing constitutional framework.

Mr. Teeling: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that, if it is too much involved with integration, it looks a little bit like saying "Unless you have integration, you cannot have this money"? Would that be entirely fair if an election comes on in Malta?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it would be unfair to say that there would be no help for Malta unless there was integration but, clearly, the settlement which was almost arrived at with the Prime Minister of Malta was a settlement covering a whole number of points, and it is impossible to separate any one from the others.

Integration

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will invite the Prime Minister of Malta to London for discussions on the next steps to be taken to implement the integration proposals.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be very shortly writing to the Prime Minister of Malta on matters of mutual concern.

Mrs. Jeger: Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least agree that it may be a much better way to get out of the deadlock to have personal discussions rather than to continue to try to deal with this matter by correspondence?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sometimes meetings help more, and sometimes correspondence does.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINICA

Electoral Roll

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what means the responsible authorities in Dominica made known the fact to all eligible persons on the island that an electoral roll was in course of preparation.

Mr. Profumo: In addition to house-to-house inquiries by enumerators as required by law, registration procedure was given publicity in the Press, by religious denominations and at public meetings held for the purpose.

Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite that fact, a very high proportion of those eligible were left off the last register, and that protests in regard to this have been sent to the Governor by both political organisations and individuals on the island? If the same register is to be used for the Federal election later this year, will not a large number of Dominicans be unable to take part in that election?

Mr. Profumo: I am satisfied, as is also my right hon. Friend, that the roll is adequate. As I explained to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) on 19th December, there was ample opportunity for the relatively small number of omissions to be rectified.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Chief Justice (Appointment)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to state when a new chief justice for the Seychelles will be appointed.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. But a selection has been made and my right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly.

Financial Position

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grant will be paid in the current year to the Government of the Seychelles to enable it to balance its budget.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is urgently considering how he can best help the Seychelles Government in its current financial difficulties and he hopes to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these so-called current financial difficulties have been going on for a very long time? Before pouring any more money down this drain, is it not important that the Seychelles fiscal system should be put in order? Does not that indicate the urgency of the Surridge Report, which we hope we shall be seeing soon?

Mr. Profumo: We shall be seeing that Report in the not-too-distant future, but when I talk about the current financial position, I mean the current financial position.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to make a statement regarding his discussions with the Governor, the European elected members, and the African National Congress of Northern Rhodesia, respectively, about the future constitutional changes in that Protectorate.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor is still holding local consultations preparatory to putting forward proposals to me and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister in a position at least to give this House an assurance that he will not tolerate a two-tier system of voting for the elected proportion? Further, is he aware that there is no African on the Executive Council of the Colony, and, also, that the

Africans would like parity at the next election? Will he bear some of these points in mind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I were to answer those three questions, I should be going a long way towards answering the Question itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE

Detainees (Inquiry)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under whose auspices the recent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment by Tan Juat Seng and Tan Bok Teng was held; against whom the allegations were made; how many members composed the committee of inquiry; and how many of them were members of the police department of Singapore.

Mr. Profumo: The inquiry into the allegations by these detainees that they had been ill-treated by members of the Singapore police was ordered by the Commissioner of Police. It was conducted by the head of the administration section of the special branch of the Singapore Police, and its results were considered by the Commissioner of Police, the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister and the Governor, who all endorsed its conclusion that the allegations were not substantiated.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister telling us that the people who are accused were the people who acted as judges in this case? If so, is he aware that not only have we to do justice but to show clearly that justice is being done, and that that cannot be done if the accused are the people who are to act as judges in the case?

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend has accepted the conclusions. If anybody was accused, it was the police. It was certainly not the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister or the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT

Mrs. Butler: asked the Prime Minister when the Medical Research Council can be expected to issue its next report on the present dangers to health


of people in this country from radioactive fall-out, in view of the new and significant material which is now available.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
Since the Medical Research Council issued its report in June, 1956, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has made considerable progress in preparing its report to the General Assembly of the United Nations. This Committee, composed of distinguished scientists from many countries, including the United Kingdom, has been collecting and collating information on all aspects of radiation affecting man and his environment and is obliged to report not later than 1st July this year. The Medical Research Council will wish to consider this important document before reporting further itself.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the fact that the Government accept the previous warning of the Medical Research Council, that an immediate review of the hazards involved in nuclear tests would be necessary if the level of strontium exceeded ten units, and that the Libby Committee now predicts that the level may reach ten units from the strontium already generated and still being deposited by previous tests, is not this the appropriate time for the Medical Research Council to be asked to review the hazards and to report—before there is any possible danger of a further series of tests this year raising the level well beyond the danger figure of ten units?

Mr. Butler: It would be wise to await the result of the investigations of this Committee, which is of great weight, and upon which the United Kingdom is represented. I understand that that is also the view of the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Gaitskell: The acting Prime Minister said that this Committee was to report some time before 1st July, 1958. Can he tell us when it is likely to report? The timing here is rather important.

Mr. Butler: It is obliged to report not later than 1st July. I could not give an accurate description of what the date will be, but as far as we are concerned the sooner the better.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question, which I have asked him before? Why has the Committee of the Medical Research Council—consisting of the most eminent men in this country—which reported on this matter in 1956, not been reconvened and asked to report again in the light of this further information?

Mr. Butler: For the reason I gave in my original reply, I think that it would be better to await the results of the investigations of this Committee. I could go further and say that I understand that the general trend of the evidence on the health hazards of radiation is in the general line of what the Medical Research Council found itself. I do not say that to prejudge the report, but in order to show that I do not believe that time is being wasted.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE PRODUCTION (REDUCTIONS)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the widespread concern at the possibility of substantial reductions in defence contracts and serious effects on the life of communities where these orders provide a major source of employment, what consideration has been given, and by what Departments, to deal with any situation that may arise, and what decisions have been made as to the action to be taken to meet eventualities.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty consult the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour about proposed reductions in defence production. Where there is scope for choice in deciding where reductions should be made the effect on local employment is taken fully into account. Where significant reductions in the numbers employed have to be made the longest possible notice is given to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour, both as regards Government establishments and private firms, so that every effort can be made to find new tenants for the factories, where that is necessary, and new jobs for the workers.

Mr. Dodds: Is not it evident that there are likely to be some very severe drops in Government expenditure? Does not the


Lord Privy Seal think that in view of that fact some special step should now be taken to ensure that if this happens in a big way there will not be any distress which could have been avoided?

Mr. Butler: We have the experience of the twelve months ended November, 1957, when, although we thought that the numbers employed had fallen by about 18,000, the numbers unemployed in that time rose only by 541. There is a good deal of absorption. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the point raised by the hon. Member, of which I think and hope he is aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS (DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government would be willing to participate in a solemn undertaking jointly with the Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics not to supply any other Government or country with nuclear bombs or warheads.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Two points in the four-Power disarmament proposals already put to the Soviet Union are that the production of fissile materials for weapons should be stopped and that, thereafter, each party should give an undertaking not to transfer out of its control any nuclear weapons or to accept transfer of such weapons to it, except under arrangements whereby their use would be limited to defence against armed attack.

Mr. Henderson: Pending the outcome of any negotiations on disarmament, which may take a considerable time in view of past history, would not the acting Prime Minister agree that steps should be taken now to prevent the hawking of these nuclear bombs round the world? Would he at least agree that this proposal should be placed on the agenda of the proposed Summit Conference?

Mr. Butler: In so far as it is included In our disarmament proposals—reference to two of which I made in my original Answer—I should like to say that we are fully aware of the dangers that might

result from the widespread manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons of any type. At the same time, we must be careful not to enter into commitments which may weaken the defence of the free world. I would sum up by saying that, up to date, the Government have not made any decision to supply nuclear weapons to other countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Prime Minister if he will more precisely define the area likely to be contaminated by oxidation of plutonium or otherwise in the event of an aircraft crashing on Great Britain while carrying a hydrogen bomb, and the period of time over which it is estimated that the contamination would last.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on several occasions, any risk of contamination from nuclear materials would be very small.

Mr. Pargiter: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evasive replies that we are getting to these Questions are creating much more uneasiness than straight answers would do?

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will read an article in Friday's issue of the British Medical Journal, in which it says that in the event of any contamination by plutonium in this country, however small, the medical profession has not been informed how it should act.

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Lady will give me the article, I will certainly read it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR REACTIONS

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up machinery to study the long-term implications of Zeta and, in particular, its bearing on investment in existing sources of power and methods of co-operation in its development between public and private industry.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.


It would be premature at this stage to set up the machinery suggested by the hon. Member. A great deal of research and development, of uncertain duration, remains to be done before controlled thermo-nuclear reactions can provide an economic source of power.

Mr. Grimond: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this development certainly will take place, and that it will have important implications on investment, for example, in our hydro-electric works in Scotland, and also in the coal industry? Should not we now begin to consider these developments, which will almost certainly come about?

Mr. Butler: We are certainly considering them, if the hon. Member will read what Sir John Cockcroft said at the Press conference at Harwell on 23rd January, he will see that a great deal of work has yet to be done before, for example, we produce the temperatures necessary to achieve what he wants. Therefore, the immediate question of investment cannot arise, however hard and successfully our scientists may work, but I hope that in our planning we will keep pace with the genius of our scientists.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the announcement in the Press of this achievement gave universal satisfaction to the whole country, and a feeling of great pride in the achievement of our scientists, and also that it was especially gratifying that the men actually concerned received the appropriate publicity in this matter? Can he give an assurance that the Government will give the highest priority to further developments in this field?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I certainly can, and I think that we would all accept that the scientists who have been involved, from Sir John Cockcroft downwards—if I may use that word—including the team to whom publicity was given, are at present ahead of the whole world in their achievements, and we should be justly proud of them. Sir John Cockcroft has erred, perhaps, on the side of modesty in naming the number of years within which these developments are likely to yield results, but in view of his great scientific achievements I think that we should accept his own words and wish him well for the future.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon Friend take steps to dispel the rumour that this project is called "Zeta" in honour of the only Member of Parliament whose name begins with "Z"?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Debate on the Report of the Bank Rate Tribunal.
TUESDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY will be the 2nd allotted Supply Day, in accordance with the arrangements previously made with the Leader of the Opposition.
It is proposed to take formally the Report stages of the Civil Supplementary Estimates relating to Agriculture and Food Grants, which are being considered in Committee today.
The debate on the Report of the Bank Rate Tribunal will be resumed and concluded.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—committee and remaining stages of the British Nationality Bill [Lords]; the Overseas Resources Development Bill; and of the Entertainments Duty Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
Third Reading of the Import Duties Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations
THURSDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which it is proposed to take formally.
A debate will take place on Industrial Relations on a Motion to be tabled by the Opposition.
FRIDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can say when the reply to Marshal Bulganin about a Summit Conference is likely to be sent? Various reports are appearing in the


Press and it is desirable that this matter should be cleared up as soon as possible. Can the right hon. Gentleman also say when he will be able to make a statement on the exact position regarding aircraft on patrol carrying hydrogen bombs? Is he further aware that we shall very likely wish to have a day to debate this matter and other aspects of foreign affairs in the near future?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We had received definite notice that the Opposition would wish to debate foreign affairs. I cannot give a date for the reply to Marshal Bulganin, but it will be sent when we have completed it. The question of making a statement on the aircraft had, I think, better arise in the light of any Questions which are on the Order Paper as to a particular or noted aspect of this matter on which the right hon. Gentleman would wish further information.

Mr. Gaitskell: On that last point, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say he would consider making a definitive statement of the position. Am I to understand from that that he does not intend to do so unless further Questions are put down? We can easily arrange for such further Questions, if he requires them.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not wish there to be further repetition. I wish to examine the nature of further points that hon. Members may desire to make before finally deciding on the nature of any statement that may be made. I should be the first not to desire any further repetition. Indeed, I am in some doubt whether any further repetition would be in order, considering the number of times that this matter has been raised.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not a question of repetition it is a question of the Government making a clear statement in view of the contradictory remarks on this subject made by Ministers from the Treasury Bench. I am asking the acting Prime Minister now whether he will be good enough to make a clear statement showing exactly what is the position.

Mr. Butler: I certainly will not go back on what I said in answer to a Question, namely, that I have been considering the best occasion on which to make a statement. Being a wise man, I wanted to

examine the Order Paper first to see what matters were to be raised.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell us what Motion we are to have on the Order Paper to debate on Monday and Tuesday? Will he bear in mind that I should like to see a very strong Government Motion castigating the Opposition for their despicable attack on men of integrity?

Mr. Butler: I hope that my hon. Friend may have an opportunity of expressing her views during the debate, if she has the honour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. The Government are tabling a Motion tonight which, I hope, will not disappoint my hon. Friend.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if we are to have a comprehensive debate on the Report of the Bank Rate Tribunal, and the circumstances leading up to it, there is one most important and relevant document which has not yet been published? I refer to the report of his own private investigations made by the Lord Chancellor to the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House arrange for that report to be circulated and to be in the hands of hon. Members before the debate on Monday?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I thought that it had already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and if not, if I am wrong, I will say so now—that it is not our intention to publish that report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]We can go into this in more detail on Monday and Tuesday, but the position is that the Opposition put certain evidence before my right hon. Friend and the Government. My right hon. Friend asked the Lord Chancellor to find whether there was a prima facie case for a further inquiry. The Lord Chancellor came to the conclusion that there was not, and the Opposition then pursued the matter nevertheless. Eventually, after some rather distressing circumstances which I will not go into this afternoon, the Government decided to set up a tribunal. It is not our intention to publish the report of the Lord Chancellor's preliminary investigations.

Sir A. V. Harvey: With reference to the question by the Leader of the Opposition about aircraft carrying hydrogen


bombs, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking to give full information to the House and the country only when the Soviet Union does likewise?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Peart: Will the acting Prime Minister take note of the Motion on today's Order Paper condemning the economy circular of the Minister of Education?
[That, in the opinion of this House, the economies envisaged by Ministry of Education Circular 334, 27th January, 1958, will cause irreparable harm to the education service; and, in view of the need for a rapid expansion of technical education, this House asks Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the circular.]
Will he make arrangements for his colleague to make an announcement to the House next week that he has withdrawn this mean circular?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir—again, I use the words prima facie, I would not agree with that description.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Minister of Education proposes to make a statement in the House and whether other Ministers who are issuing these circulars will do so? Are we not entitled to get from the Government what their new proposals are for cuts in the social services?

Mr. Butler: There are endless opportunities in the much maligned procedure of this House to debate and air grievances. It would be just as well to examine the matter a little further before any more criticisms are levelled against my right hon. Friend and the Government. If there is a desire for a debate, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the first to wish to explain his position.

Mr. Blyton: In view of the important debate on industrial relations to be held next Thursday, is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are a number of back bench Members who would like to take part? May I ask whether the debate can be extended for one hour?

Mr. Butler: It is a normal Supply Day, so I think that we should stick to the normal procedure. In the comings

and going today I will see whether there are a great number of hon. Members who are interested and whether the request of the hon. Member should be examined. But my first reaction would be to say that it would be difficult to arrange for an extension of time as it is a Supply Day.

Mr. D. Jones: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion on the Order Paper, in the names of a number of my hon. Friends and myself, dealing with health, safety and welfare conditions on railways?
[That this House regrets that, despite the assurance given by the then Prime Minister on 9th June, 1955, in regard to legislation for dealing with the recommendations of the Gowers Committee for dealing with health, safety and welfare provisions on railways, the Government have not yet seen fit to give any firm indication of their intention to implement this firm promise, and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to implement immediately the assurance given by Sir Anthony Eden in June, 1955.]
To save us from being obliged to keep the Motion on the Order Paper indefinitely, will the right hon. Gentleman now name a day for a debate on it?

Mr. Butler: At the moment I have not a day available. I am aware of the Motion, a copy of which I have before me.

Mr. Drayson: The Leader of the House will have, noted that while the Opposition require two days for the debate on the Report of the Bank Rate Tribunal, the Leader of the Opposition considers that one cay would be sufficient to debate foreign affairs. Will the Leader of the House consider having a two-day debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Butler: I had observed the request of the Opposition, which is only a preliminary one however, for a one-day debate on foreign affairs. I think that we had better leave it at that for the time being. The question of two days for debating the Report of the Bank Rate Tribunal arises because the Government thought one day was sufficient and the Opposition offered a Supply Day. It is


constitutional to accept the offer of a day from the Opposition, and I think that these things should be retained because they are part of our tradition.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House not aware that I did not mention one day, two days or three days? Since the subject has been raised, may I now ask him whether he will find time for a two-day debate?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will oblige with two Supply Days.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the Leader of the House to bear in mind that if there is to be a debate on circulars there is not only one from the Ministry of Education but a corresponding one, equally important, from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for abundant copies of both circulars to be placed in the Library?

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether I can arrange for abundant copies, but I can certainly see that the circulars are brought to the attention of hon. Members. Part of the object of circularising is to make their contents known.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Referring to the question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), may I press the Leader of the House, and remind him that the subject of that Motion is of considerable interest to many workers, and that a specific promise was given about it by the Government some years ago? When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do something about it?

Mr. Butler: We have a great deal to do at the moment. In due course, I hope that this Motion may take its place. I cannot go any further than that today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply and of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

CLASS VIII. VOTE 1

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £853,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.

3.43 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): if it had not been for recent events it would, of course, have fallen to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to present these Supplementary Estimates to the Committee.
Before coming to those Estimates, I would like to pay a tribute to the great contribution which the Chancellor has made to British farming. He was the architect of the long-term policy which is now embodied in the 1957 Agriculture Act, and which underwrites and secures the price guarantees in the 1947 Agriculture Act, introduced by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I believe that he won the confidence of all sections of the agricultural industry. Whatever differences of opinion may have arisen from time to time in the House of Commons, I am sure that everyone on both sides would wish to join with me in this very short tribute to his great achievements.
The Supplementary Estimates amount, in all, to £54 million, a very considerable sum of money. Vote I, which I am now moving, consists mainly of the cost of the staff of my Department. I think that the Committee would wish me to

deal fairly briefly with this Supplementary Estimate of £850,000. I suspect that Members will want the main discussion to take place on the very much larger issues which arise on Vote II.
Most of this Supplementary Estimate arises from pay increases awarded to civil servants as part of the general Civil Service settlements arrived at in the early summer of last year and mainly coming into effect in July.
The Committee will wish to be assured that we are trying to make all possible economies in the number of staff whom we employ. We have, in fact, reduced the number by more than 500 during the past twelve months, partly through the radical reorganisation of our regional work on the lines recommended by the Arton Wilson Committee which was set up by my predecessor. I hope that there will be some further streamlining of the Department.
I would remind hon. Members that the scope for major reductions in staff is now rather limited. Since the Ministries of Food and Agriculture were merged in 1955, the total run-down has been fairly considerable. In 1955, the total staffs amounted to 18,000. Today, they amount to 15,000, a run-down of 3,000. I am glad also to be able to say that the heavy extra duties imposed on the staff in the operation of the Farm Improvement Scheme have been taken on without additional staff being added.
The only other point I would mention specially is in Subhead A3, which deals with payments to the Potato Marketing Board. These payments are to cover the cost of certain services which the board does at our request: the collection and processing of statistics and other information on the varieties grown, their yields, stocks on farms, and so on. It was originally included in Subhead B6 of the main Estimates of last year, on the cost of the price guarantee. For the sake of greater clarity we have brought it out separately. It is not extra expenditure but a transfer, and partly accounts for the saving of £300,000 which hon. Members can see in Subhead B6 in page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate.
After this short explanation, and the very straightforward reason why I am putting this Supplementary Estimate forward, I ask the Committee to give it approval.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Let me, first, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, upon his recent appointment.
The right hon. Gentleman is by no means the first Conservative Minister of Agriculture to be appointed since I have been in the House of Commons. Between 1922 and 1939 there were no fewer than eight of them and, after a couple of years, they all seemed to run like hares I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not gallop off just as fast as some of his predecessors.
Having had some little experience at the Ministry, I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a very tough assignment. If he can please 360,000 farmers, 50 million consumers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman will be almost a miracle worker. I hope that he has a fairly easy time at the Department. We will make it as little easy as possible in the House of Commons. We wish him well in all that he has to do.
It is pleasing to note that some Civil Service claims for increased salaries are granted by the Government when the claimants have made out their case. Therefore, we are not prepared to complain this afternoon about this Supplementary Estimate.
The only other item referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was the question of agencies, and I do not think we can complain about that payment which is for services rendered. It may very well be that some other hon. Member will have something to say either on salaries or these payments. For my part, they are quite in order and I am prepared to leave it at that.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: May I ask the Minister whether any part of this Supplementary Estimate represents an increase in overtime by existing civil servants because of any cuts made in the staff of the Department?

Mr. E. G. Gooch: The Minister has told the Committee that quite a number of discharges have taken place from the staff of his Ministry.

I wonder whether he is in a position to indicate the ranks of the people discharged? What departments do they come from? Do they include high civil servants as well as those who suggest to farmers how to catch rats on the farm?

Mr. Douglas Marshall: My right hon. Friend stated that these charges were due to pay increases to civil servants. Does that also apply to the additional provision of £5,000 in respect of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew?

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister said that the Department had managed to absorb the work done in the Farm Improvement Scheme without additional staff. I think those were his words. That seems amazing and I wish to ask whether more cannot be done in this connection. I think that about 19,000 farmers asked that work should be done on their buildings and that its total value amounted to £12½ million. I believe that the Department pays one-third of the cost of the schemes allowed and that would be £93,500. A total of approximately £3 million has been allowed so far. In ten years £50 million would be paid in farm improvement work if the Government plan is completed. Why are the Government not getting on with the job? Why is it considered such a paltry job at the moment that they can absorb the work amongst the existing staff of the Department?

Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the rule is that where a class of civil servants obtains an increase the cost of the increase has to be borne by that particular establishment. In other words, the increase has to be offset by a reduction in the establishment. I have pursued the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor on the question of cartographers doing specific work for the Department. I am sure that if the rule has to be followed here the Minister would find difficulty if it had to cut down the services of the Ordnance Survey. I do not know whether the Department is affected by this rule, but there is certain essential work which has to be carried on and it is fair and proper that the people carrying out that work should have the increases to which they are entitled.

3.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I will reply to the points which have been raised. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for his generous tribute to my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Member said that he is satisfied with these matters, but other issues were raised.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) asked whether, in fact, there was increased overtime for the staff. I am advised that there has not been any considerable amount of overtime work. As regards the reduction in staff, it was spread over two or three years and a certain number of services which we were operating have closed down, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) is aware. Some of those people have left us and have gone into other industries. It has been a general and gradual process and we have done our best to solve personal problems as staff have left our service. At present, the run-down is largely accounted for by normal wastage.

Mr. Gooch: I wanted to know about the relationship between the manual and other workers and whether only the manual workers "got it in the neck".

Mr. Godber: I think it has been fair all round; I am satisfied that the clerical workers, just as much as the manual workers, have been reduced.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) gave some figures which he said related to farm improvement schemes, but I think he got the figures wrong because he referred to £12 million. There is no question of £12 million arising on farm improvement schemes. The total number of schemes involved certainly does not approach that figure.

Mr. J. Johnson: I think that about 19,000 asked for work to be done and that, in total, it would amount to more than £12 million. I think that the Department has passed about £3 million of the work. That means it will provide £1 million, because it pays 33⅓ of the cost. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Department will push on

with this matter? We talk about slums in the cities, but we ought also to clear slums in the countryside and give good conditions for farmers and their wives. The Minister said that manpower was being absorbed in the Departments, but I would not mind if he extended the number of people on this job, because it will pay dividends in the years to come.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Member. As he said, we have authorised about £3 million worth of work to go ahead, but I would remind him that this is a 10-year scheme. The problem arising here has been that so many schemes have been put in which have not been sufficiently thought out and considered by the applicants. It is up to the farmers themselves to think out their plans and prepare them very carefully. If they do so, they will benefit themselves as well as the nation.
I think that there is a great deal of simple work study—which is only applied common sense—needed by the farmer in carrying out a scheme and we would not wish to encourage acceleration. I think it best to have a steady through-put. If we thought that the staff were inhibiting the work, we would look at the matter again. There have been one or two pockets—notably in the South-West—where there has been delay and we have posted staff there to look into the question. We have adequate staff to deal with this matter.

Mr. D. Marshall: I hope that my hon. Friend will reply to the point I raised about whether the £5,000 in respect of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, relates exactly to the increase in remuneration.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry I missed that point. Yes, it is exactly on all fours with the other addition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £853,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.

CLASS VIII. VOTE 2

Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £44,983,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other subsidies and services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. John Hare: As the Committee knows, this Vote covers agriculture and food grants and subsidies. There are great difficulties in assessing accurately these types of Estimates. The first point I would make is that the Estimates were drawn up before the 1957 Price Review and do not take account of the £14 million award of last year.
Secondly, the Vote includes subsidies such as those for fertilisers where the expenditure is entirely dependent on how much farmers choose to use of a particular fertiliser. Still more important, the Vote covers all the agricultural price guarantees, and the expenditure in this case depends partly on the volume of home production and partly on the market price of farm products, neither of which can be predicted with great accuracy a year or more ahead.
I should like to make some comments on the main items. The first is that dealing with farming grants and subsidies. The Committee will see that the big increases are £1·6 million on fertilisers and £1.4 million on silo subsidies. These are directly designed to encourage higher production and better use of our grassland and thus to reduce our dependence on imported feedingstuffs. That is a very important part of our policy because our bill for imported feedingstuffs is still very large.
The nitrogen subsidy, of course, was deliberately increased at the last Price Review, and this seems to have encouraged farmers to make more use of nitrogen. The silo subsidy, introduced early in November, 1956, has been more successful than we had originally expected.

I hope that the Committee will welcome rather than deprecate the higher expenditure on these items. I should perhaps point out that the excess expenditure of over £4 million on some of the "A" subheads for the Vote are offset by savings on other "A" subheads, shown in page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate, amounting to £2½ million.
I should like to turn to those subheads which provide for the agricultural price guarantees. The Committee, I am sure, appreciates that the 1958 Agricultural Price Review is shortly to begin. While I will try to explain the reasons which have led to increases in the costs of the guarantees this year, it would obviously be wrong for me to say anything at this point on the future level of particular guarantees.
The biggest item is the cereals guarantee, for which we are asking an additional £20,500,000, which is a very large amount. By far the greater part of it is due to the fall in world prices of grain, and I want to say something about this, in particular, a little later.
The next item deals with eggs. It is not too easy from the Supplementary Estimate to see how much extra we are requesting. It is, in fact, £15·7 million, but the actual figure does not appear in the Supplementary Estimate and it may be convenient to the Committee if I try to explain in detail how this is worked out.
First, we must turn to the original Estimate of last year. It will be seen in page 40 of that Estimate that under Subhead B.2 we provided a sum of £28·1 million for a subsidy to egg packers to implement the price guarantee to producers. At that time we did not know whether the Egg Marketing Board would be voted into existence and take over the administration of the price guarantee, and we provided last year only for a token sum of £10 for payment to the board. Last year, we also provided £4·6 million under subhead B.7 in page 41 to cover the cost of trading in eggs by my Department. The total of these three items in the original Estimate was £32·7 million.
In fact, the Egg Marketing Board took over the administration of the guarantee on 30th June, 1957. Up to that time we had paid out to the egg packers about


£15·3 million. This is much less than the original estimate of £28·1 million, because the original figure was based on the full year. There is therefore, a notional saving of £12·8 million, which will be seen under Subhead B.2 in page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate.
On the other hand, from 30th June we expect to pay £32·3 million to the Egg Marketing Board, and this is shown under Subhead B.B.2 in page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate. Finally, the losses on trading were just under £800,000 in the three months up to June and the saving on the original Estimate for the year was, therefore, £3·8 million. This is included under Subhead B.7 in page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate. To further complicate matters, that saving is reduced by increased payments in trading in Northern Ireland potatoes.
The total cost of the egg subsidy is expected to be £48·4 million, compared with a total provision of £32·7 million, thus showing an increase of £15·7 million. I am sorry that these provisions are so complicated, but I felt that the Committee deserved an explanation of them.
The reason for this additional expenditure of nearly £16 million is that the wholesale prices for eggs have been lower than we expected when the Estimate was produced and production has increased. It is true that the guaranteed price was reduced in the 1957 Price Review, but this has been only a partial offset.
On the fatstock guarantees there is an increase of £3·6 million on my Vote. The Committee may like to know—as the figures are not broken down in the Estimates—that the total cost of the guarantees for the United Kingdom during 1957–58 is estimated at £36·4 million for cattle, £10·4 million for sheep and £38·9 million for pigs, making a total of £75·6 million.
The increase of £3·3 million for milk on the Vote, bringing the total cost of the milk guarantee in the United Kingdom up to nearly £14 million, may seem modest compared with some of the other figures which I have just given, but this could be misleading. The consumer now pays all the cost arising out of liquid milk, including the cost of the increase awarded to farmers at the last Price Review. The subsidies are required to support to a limited extent the price of

milk for manufacture, and the main reason for the supplementary provision is the drastic decline which has taken place in the past year in the market price of cheese and butter.
I think the Committee realise that this increased expenditure on our agricultural guarantees must be looked at against the general background of agricultural conditions both in this country and overseas. At home, the net output from our farms in 1956–57 was a record, about 60 per cent. above the pre-war figure. This level of output, I think, will certainly be maintained in 1957–58. It is true that the harvest was not too good, but this was offset by a continued increase in the output of livestock products. I think the Committee will agree that this record is an achievement for the three partners in the industry—farmers, workers, and land-owners; they deserve great credit.
A high level of net output can certainly be in the nation's interest as well as in the farmer's own interest, although I must stress that it is increasingly important that the output should become more competitive in cost and should meet market needs. As I will show, within the general trend there are points which give cause for anxiety both because of their effects on the cost of agricultural support and because of other reasons.
If we look in a little more detail at the main products, we see that the arable area was maintained last year, and that there was a switch from wheat into barley. Both accord with our objective of putting the main emphasis on feed crops. Yields, however, were below normal, and the total production of cereals was also below 1956.
The production of livestock products continues to increase—

Mr. Willey: Touching on livestock, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help my arithmetic, and repeat the livestock figures. I have had a word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and we are not sure that we have them right. I am referring to support prices.

Mr. Hare: The figures are £36·4 million for cattle, £10·4 million for sheep, and £38·9 million for pigs, total U.K figures.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged. We could not quite follow. That makes a total of £85·7 million.

Mr. Hare: The figure of £85·7 million is correct.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman should not worry about that.

Mr. Hare: I worry like mad.
To continue, there are definite danger signals in regard to livestock production. Taking cattle first, over the last two years the dairy herd has gone on expanding, although the increase now seems to be slowing down. There was a big increase in the output of milk in 1956–57, and the output in 1957–58 is likely to show a still further increase. The consumption of liquid milk is not increasing and, in consequence, much more has to be sold for manufacture into butter and cheese, at prices that are below the cost of production.
On the brighter side of cattle production, we have increased beef output this year, and the output in 1957–58 is expected to stay at a high level—

Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has said that milk consumption is not increasing. Has it decreased to any significant extent as a result of the reduction in school children's milk?

Mr. Hare: The figures remain fairly stable, comparing last year with the year before.
As I was saying, beef shows encouraging signs, and the same applies to sheep. In 1956–57, we had a good lambing season, and the production of mutton and Iamb has gone on expanding.
Now we come to pigs and eggs, both of which, of course, have given rise to considerable difficulties during the past year. As hon. Members know, there has been a good deal of anxiety expressed in the farming industry recently about the low prices of bacon pigs. Quite frankly, the market for bacon has been heavily loaded at times since last October, and bacon prices have been rather low. On the other hand, pork prices have been comparatively high.
Our guarantee system is intended to see that pigs go where they are most wanted and, as has been announced, I am, next

week, seeing the leaders of the bacon and pig industry to discuss the position and hear what they have to say. I am afraid that the continuing trend in pig numbers is not too satisfactory an aspect under present conditions—

Sir James Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that, that there are too many pigs, or too few?

Mr. Hare: As I thought I made clear, I meant that the market was, at times, being overloaded. I believe that last year my predecessor said that the market at present did not require further pig meat, but it looks as though we shall reach a level of output even above the previous peak in 1954–55.
The output of eggs is continuing to increase. The laying flock is increasing slightly, and yields are improving.
I must remind the Committee that a large part of this production of milk, eggs and pig meat is dependent on purchased feedingstuffs, much of them imported. Despite welcome signs of economy in the use of concentrated feed supplies, we are still having to spend more than I like on imported feed for our livestock population. There is ample room for better use of home-grown feeds, and we must not forget the better use of grass in that connection.
I am sorry to have taken so long but, to sum up, let me once again give the trends in the past year as they affect agricultural policy, and the guarantees in particular. As I have said, the more satisfactory features of the past year are the continued increase in beef, mutton and lamb; the maintenance of the arable area; the swing from wheat into barley, and signs of economies in the use of concentrated feed. Less satisfactory features are larger supplies of milk and eggs on markets already fairly well satisfied; the resurgence of pig breeding, and the extent to which we are still dependent on imported feed.
We shall be reviewing all these trends, together with our production objectives at the Annual Review and, as I said earlier, it would not be right for me at this stage in any way to anticipate the outcome of that Review. I have, therefore, done no more than set out the general trends of production, and how they appear in relation to the production


objectives my predecessor had in mind last year. I do not think that the general picture I have painted can be described as a necessarily gloomy one. Above all, the standard of farming efficiency has never been better.
Our expenditure on these guarantees to our farmers is also affected by all the developments in world markets for food and feedingstuffs. During the past year, prices and freight rates for many commodities have fallen sharply. This is particularly true of cereals. An increased subsidy bill is one side of the medal, but the other paradoxically enough, is good news for the consumer—more food at lower cost.
We are, in general, eating better than ever before. For example, we are drinking about 50 per cent. more liquid milk than we did before the war, and we are also eating more meat, eggs and other foods that provide animal protein. We are consuming about 10 per cent. more sugar, and about 5 per cent. more fats than before the war. Retail prices of a number of important foods have been coming down, following the trend of world prices, and only last week I gave the House an example of this in reference to bacon, butter and cheese.
Whatever happens to market prices, we guarantee fair prices to our farmers, and that is the main reason for this Supplementary Estimates. We believe that the combination of a liberal import policy and fair price guarantees to the farmer through deficiency payments is by far the best for the nation. It is for the benefit of the consumer, and it leaves the way open to free choice and lower retail prices—

Mr. Frederick Peart: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "a liberal import policy"? It is important to be precise about this, in view of the controversy about the Common Market.

Mr. Hare: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that with G.A.T.T. and our general trading agreements, we are trying as far as we can to liberalise policy, within reason. That is, we are trying to get away from quotas and import restrictions, and relying purely on tariffs to give our own home markets a fair crack of the whip. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that this

method leaves the free choice to the consumer and gives the consumer a chance of lower retail prices. It does not, as happens in very many other countries, throw the cost of farm support on to the consumer. If one uses import restrictions, high tariffs and managed prices that is what inevitably happens.
This policy is also to the benefit of our balance of payments. We are helped at present by the, fall in world prices of food and feeding stuffs, but we must recognise the consequences of this policy. When market prices fall, the bill to the taxpayer for the support of agriculture must go up. I think that this possibility was fully appreciated when the present system of agricultural support was introduced.
The 1947 Act, putting guaranteed prices on a permanent basis, was placed on the Statute Book by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). That was followed by the 1957 Act, which fortified those guarantees through the long-term assurances and, in large measures, received, I think, the support of the Opposition last year. On these matters, therefore, we are probably not as far apart as sometimes we pretend to be. I was very glad, as I was watching T.V. last week, to see that the Leader of the Opposition has at last seen the light on the question of general food subsidies. We were rather heavily criticised at the time we decided to end them. I am sure that everyone now sees that in the long run it was the right thing to do.
I noted that the Leader of the Opposition also said that price control could not be anything but a shock tactic. What alternative is there to our present policy? Surely we all agree that the farmer must have fair guaranteed prices. We all realise that this means an Exchequer subsidy. The subsidy will be high this year. We are now going through a period of falling world prices, with a consequent rise in subsidies.
We should look at the question of farm support on a long-term basis. In years to come, food prices may well rise and the subsidies will correspondingly fall. Moreover, if, as we believe, the agricultural industry becomes more competitive this will also reduce the need for subsidies at the present rates. None of us would be content to think that they


would, in fact, remain for ever at the present level. The farming industry is becoming increasingly efficient. As this process continues, it should, therefore, be possible to ensure that farming will earn a fair standard of living, combined with a reducing Exchequer support. We shall, no doubt, hear more from hon. Members opposite about the lines of their agricultural policy.

Mr. William Ross: It will be out of order.

Mr. Hare: All these matters are absolutely basic to agricultural policy. I cannot see a better alternative to the policy that we have been following. It is, therefore, with the utmost confidence that I ask the Committee to agree to the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Sydney Dye: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, he said that he would return to Subhead B.1, "Cereals." Could he tell us how the £45 million is divided between wheat, barley, oats and rye? It is of some importance, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hare: The increase of £20·5 million is made up as follows: Wheat, £8·9 million; barley, £5·9 million; oats, £4·7 million; and mixed corn, £1 million.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope that for the first two or three minutes of my speech I shall be strictly in order on the Supplementary Estimate. I am not at all sure that I shall be in order afterwards. This is a warning which I hope you have failed to observe, Sir Charles.
While we are glad to see that farmers are becoming fertiliser-conscious and that yields of all kinds are increasing, including grass yields—which cannot fail to be a help to our balance of payments in that we produce our own feeding stuffs instead of having to import them—it would be extremely interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee the comparative figures in fertiliser prices over the past few years. This revised Estimate is for £23,600,000, a large sum, and we are anxious to know that suppliers are not taking advantage of any assistance that the Government may be giving to the farming industry.
I know that the fertiliser industry is already before the Monopolies Commission for consideration, but we shall neither make charges nor allegations against the producers. However, we should like to hear from the Minister when he expects to receive the report of the Commission. We should like an assurance from him, since the Government are reasonably generous in their treatment by subsidising fertilisers, that they will make doubly sure that the national interests are well cared for when the Monopolies Commission finally reports.
Similarly, we welcome the greater use of lime, which is reflected in the yields: potatoes, 15 per cent.; sugar beet, 36 per cent.; barley, 42 per cent.; wheat, 36 per cent.; and oats, 21 per cent. The use of fertilisers and lime, combined perhaps with better cultivation, is helping the farming community to increase output to the extent mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We should also like an assurance, too, from the right hon. Gentleman that his Department is keeping a strict eye on the price of lime. I do not know whether the suppliers are exploiting the position, but, were they to do so, society as a whole would be infuriated. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give the Committee, if only as an assurance, some information about prices over the past few years.
I should like to say a word or two about cereals. Subhead B.1 reads:
Additional provision required to cover increased payments resulting mainly from a general fall in market prices and variations in the quantities and standard prices of certain cereals determined following the 1957 Annual Review.
If import prices fall, and the prices of home production fall in sympathy, consumers at some point should, as the right hon. Gentleman said, be benefiting from these lower prices. The right hon. Gentleman suggested by implication that consumers were benefiting and that retail prices had gone down. Yet we noticed that the price index has just gone up once again. There has not been a downward tendency at all in retail food prices, so far as I can discover; and we read of millers' profits and bakers' profits. Perhaps they are entitled to them; I am not complaining.
At all events, if the price of imported food decreases, thereby increasing deficiency payments—and the deficiency payment for wheat for October-November is £8 7s. per ton—unless the retail price of that food is decreased, then the consumer derives no benefit from either cheaper imported food or home-produced subsidised food. The sacrifice of the taxpayer is of no avail, so far as the consumer is concerned, except, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the indirect benefit that we all get from the contribution that increased home food production makes to balancing our payments problem.
Surely that is not enough. We agree with the stabilising contribution of the Treasury, but we insist that the consumer should benefit from the cheaper imports and subsidised home production. Indeed, from 1947 that has been the essence of the exercise in this completely new approach to our agricultural and national financial problems—that is to say, to import what we cannot produce efficiently, to equate the price of home production with the price of imported foods, and, with the help of the Treasury, safeguard the producer and consumer at the same time.
We are not sure that that has been happening. We are satisfied that the industry as such, through the assistance received from the Treasury, has been able to do better than ever before in this century, but we are not satisfied that the consumers' interests are being safeguarded, despite the sacrifices made, quite properly, by the taxpayer.
The right hon. Gentleman might say that that would involve some sort of price control and that that is utterly contrary to Tory principles. But that is not an adequate answer. Although I know that we cannot discuss price controls and that sort of thing during this debate, we should remember that if we are to maintain a healthy and vigorous agriculture for its own sake, and for the sake of our balance of payments, deficiency payments being made accordingly, private interests should not be allowed to exploit the Treasury and the consumer.
Nobody wants controls or rigid, price fixing for their own sake, but we have here a completely new problem which has arisen out of the 1947 approach to agriculture. Some of us saw that the day might come when import prices would

begin to fall compared with those in the days of shortage during and immediately following the war, and that that was a situation which would have to be watched very carefully. It is a problem affecting consumers which either this or some other Government will have to face. I am perfectly certain that society will not continue to provide £250 million per annum unless it is able to feel that, at some point, the consumer will reap an advantage.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little too complacent about retail prices and the consumer's position. He appeared to feel—indeed, he said it—that retail prices had been falling largely because of the help which the Treasury was giving to the industry. I have not noticed it. Just to select one commodity, wheat—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bacon".] I said wheat; hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make my own choice. We are just putting up an extra £8 million because the price of imported wheat has gone down. The price of home-produced wheat has gone down in sympathy and the Treasury is, quite properly, I agree, stepping in. That is its function, to stabilise prices over the year.
Home-grown and imported wheat is being sold at lower prices. May we be told what has happened to the retail price of flour and bread? If there is no reasonable reduction in the retail price, the consumer is being exploited. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee would not like that to happen.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that 1 lb. of bread in the United Kingdom costs 6d.; in the United States the equivalent figure is 1s. 4½d.; and in France it is 7¾d. Ours is the cheapest.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is like the flowers that bloom in the spring. His observation has got "nowt to do wi' it". I am concerned only with the price paid by the British housewife and the price paid by the baker or miller for his wheat. That is the only thing which concerns right hon. and hon. Members of the Committee, not what the situation may be in America or in Timbuctoo.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: On his own calculations, by how much does the right hon. Gentleman think the price of


bread should have come down, if the whole amount of the subsidy were passed on to the consumer?

Mr. Williams: I shall hand that on to the Minister, who, despite the loss of 500 of his staff, has a far bigger staff than I have. He ought to be able to oblige the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and myself with just what reductions have taken place and to what extent, if any, the consumer is really benefiting from the new situation.

Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman does not have the figures himself?

Mr. Williams: I certainly have not, except that I know from the Minister's figures that the deficiency payment has gone up another £8 million for wheat alone. We shall not vote against this Supplementary Estimate, because, as I see the matter, most of it merely carries out agreements made at the last February Review; but we shall expect the Minister to find ways and means, in course of time, of safeguarding the interests of the consumer.
A word now about eggs. The jigsaw financial puzzle which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to us left us all in a state of mental darkness. It was like being in a London fog; we did not know whether we were coming or going. One thing the right hon. Gentleman omitted to tell us was whether the Egg Marketing Scheme is now working efficiently and effectively. We knew, when the original Estimate was produced, that it was quite impossible for his predecessor to get anywhere near an accurate figure, not knowing whether there would or would not be a marketing scheme.
Although the figures look very formidable in the Supplementary Estimate, they are not nearly so formidable as at first glance they might seem. When the Egg Marketing Scheme was, as it were, on the stocks, and people were discussing whether it should or should not come into existence, there was much clamour for more and more freedom for the egg producer. It was suggested that an egg marketing scheme would fail, that farmers wanted to sell their eggs where-ever they wished and not through a packing station with which they were not at all acquainted.
If the events of the last six or seven months have proved anything, they have proved that the producer of eggs is better content with a safe market than with anything else. I hope that whoever is to reply will tell us what percentage of eggs produced in this country is now passing through the packing stations. The percentage before the Egg Marketing Scheme came into existence is known, and the Ministry should know what is happening to the scheme now, and whether, having regard to present-day experience, we are likely in future to avoid Supplementary Estimates of the kind confronting us today.
We have no complaint about the Supplementary Estimate. In the circumstances, it seemed almost inevitable. What we might well feel pleased about is that, for the first time in my lifetime, I think—which is, perhaps, too long—we are producing all the eggs the housewife can afford to buy. I was glad to hear the Minister say that we are consuming about 10 per cent. more eggs than we did before the war. True, we did not consume many before the war, because there was not the spending power about for people to buy eggs with, not even crate eggs or lizards' eggs. The situation has improved, thanks to the 1947 approach to agriculture.
Subhead B.3 tells us that the estimate of £3,600,000 will be partly offset by savings due to a reduction in the feed price formula for pigs. Can the Minister tell us how much will be offset by a change in the formula for feed price, and to what extent the feed price formula has been changed due to an increase to the import of cereals of various kinds?
The Minister told us that the arable area this year has been maintained, but he did not go on to add the words "at a very low level". It is down hundreds of thousands of acres, compared with what it was three or four years ago. There is concern about milk because we are producing too much; we have become too efficient, and we have too many animals. We do not know how to sell our own produce. I still feel that there is a weak spot somewhere in the chain, for we still ought to be able to sell more liquid milk, if the housewife were made fully aware of its true value. I do not think that we have reached the end of potential sales of liquid milk


which would enable dairy farmers, particularly the small ones, to continue their productivity.
We have the same warning about pigs and eggs that we had last year; there are too many eggs, or they are not being sold where they ought to be sold. Now, we are learning the lesson of the Government's failure to do something with the National Farmers' Union about pigs or bacon or a joint marketing board for pig meat. We know what happened, in the absence of a marketing scheme, following a variation in the price of pork or bacon. If the average farmer, even sometimes when he was an actual member of a bacon factory, could get 1d. more per lb. for pork than for bacon, he would dodge his own bacon factory and go round the corner to get the extra 1d. for pork.
I should have thought that by 1957 or 1958 the time had arrived when we should think more seriously about the possibility of a pig marketing scheme. Otherwise, the transfer from one outlet to the other is bound to continue. At the moment, I understand, some bacon factories are having to carry on with a 25 per cent. through-put of pigs. It is a hopelessly uneconomic proposition and until pigs, either for bacon or for pork, are sold through a nation-wide marketing scheme, we shall never have contentment and happiness in that part of the industry.

Sir J. Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that under the agricultural marketing Acts there is nothing to prevent the producer from putting up a scheme if he so desires? The onus is not upon the Government, but upon producers, and there is nothing to prevent them from putting forward schemes.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is aware that the Commission, which was sitting until about eighteen months ago and which finally reported, recommended against a pig marketing scheme and the Minister of Agriculture approved the Commission's recommendations. Consequently, the National Farmers' Union has apparently done nothing further about it since.
That there is a lack of sympathy within the Government ranks was indicated by the Minister's acceptance of the report which recommended against a pig marketing scheme. I hope that present-day experience will at least help the

Minister to think about it again and finally, perhaps, the National Farmers' Union will feel that something had better be done about the problem, so that there may be done for pigs what is being done for eggs and what has been done for milk since 1933.
I repeat that it is not our intention to vote against any one of these Supplementary Estimates. We know that they are merely fulfilling bargains that the Government entered into in March, 1957. We welcome the expenditure, even where it has increased, if it is producing the goods and satisfying the needs of the consumers and safeguarding our balance of payments position. I do not know what we would have done had it not been for the increase of between 50 and 60 per cent. in productivity over the last eight or nine years.
I tremble to think what would have happened to our balance of payments position if we had ever reached the stage where we had to buy largely with dollars the extra £400 million worth of food. It is to me, at least, a consoling thought that, starting as we did, in 1947, we at least helped to save agriculture and the nation.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw:: I hope to avoid the twin dangers, on both flanks, of becoming involved in discussions about the price of bread or about pig marketing. I am prepared to leave both of those aspects to other hon. Members who know more about them than I do. I want to make one point which I hope to relate to the additional sums required for fertilisers and subsidies. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) have touched upon it. It concerns the use of our home-grown feeding resources and the cutting down of our bills for imported feeding stuffs.
I think we would all agree that these additional sums which are required for fertilisers, lime and the rest are thoroughly justified if they are helping to contribute to a healthy agriculture. That, in turn, means that if it is to be healthy, agriculture must, in the long run, be competitive. That is something at which we must all aim and to which all our policies must be directed. If that is to be the case, we must turn our attention at all times to the costs of production.
I should like to make one point following the right hon. Member for Don Valley about the arable acreage. When considering acreages, I always feel that there is a danger of imagining that so long as the acreage of a particular commodity is increasing, all is well. I do no, agree with that. What matters is that we should increase the acreage of the crops for which our natural climate and resources are best profitable. I do not think there is any doubt that in this country the crop for which our climate and resources are best suited is grass. Grass is our national asset and it is to that end that our policy must be directed.
When we talk about costs of production, the dangerous fallacy is sometimes Put abroad that the increased costs fall outside the farmer's control. Many of the increased costs are, of course, outside the farmer's control, but there is one which, clearly, is not. I refer to the feeding of livestock. Already savings have been made, and are being made, by many farmers in their feeding by using more grass and less imported feeding stuffs. Indeed, the fact that the fertiliser and subsidy bills are in excess of the Estimate shows that farmers are determined to improve their grassland and so feed still more grass. In fact, we have moved a long way from the days when grassland was regarded merely as an exercising ground for animals. It is now a crop, as it should be.
In all this, however, I have the one regret that the policy which is directed to improving our grassland is not leading quickly enough to a reduction in the bill for imported feeding stuffs. My right hon. Friend has said that there are improvements in that direction, but I doubt whether any of us can be satisfied that they are quick or big enough. I hope, therefore, that while we continue the policy of increasing our own home-feeding resources, we will take positive action on the other side of the case and that my right hon. Friend will consider deliberately discouraging the feeding of imported feeding stuffs. They are expensive, they add sometimes unnecessarily to the cost of production and, as we all know, they tend to accentuate the problem of surpluses.
For all these reasons. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give his attention to that aspect of the problem.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: What the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has said should be considered carefully by the Committee. Before continuing with that aspect, however, I should like to remind the Committee of Command Paper 23, published by the Ministry to explain the long-term assurances for agriculture which were established in the Bill of last year. It was published in November, 1956, and it says, in paragraph 2 (iv), that among questions considered by the Government was:
What more could be done to assist the industry in improving its competitive position and to help towards a progressive reduction in the need for Exchequer support?
That is something which we in this Committee ought to consider today, most particularly.
How far have these subsidies been able to assist the industry to met foreign competition, with a view ultimately to decreasing the subsidies? I fear that the answer is, "Not as much as was hoped." One cannot expect the taxpayer to agree, without very good reasons, to continue indefinitely subsidies of this nature, Unless there is considerable evidence of increasing agricultural efficiency which will lead to a decline in subsidy.
I am not saying that there is no evidence of greater efficiency, but I am afraid that there are areas where this is still in doubt. The Minister today seemed almost to create the impression that as world prices have gone down subsidies must go up. But it is not only a question of supporting the price to the farmer but of his cost of production, which rests with the farmer himself.
What has the farmer done to lower his costs to meet the lower prices? I think that all sides of the Committee would agree that, at any rate now, agriculture must have support of the nature laid down in the Estimates, though perhaps not so much at present because of danger of war emergencies. If a third world war came, the siege economy of the last two wars would be blasted as soon as it began. It is something quite different, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred, which now abundantly justifies the contribution which we ask the taxpayer to make to the agricultural


industry, namely, the vital problem of the balance of payments, because home agriculture contributes substantially towards reducing our import bill.
There can be no question that the farming grants and subsidies covered by Subheads A.1 to A.11, dealing with feedingstuffs and lime, field drainage and silo construction, and the newly instituted improvements in farm layout, are the best kind of subsidies because the, help the farmer to help himself. They help the efficient farmer to go on increasing output and lowering costs, which is absolutely vital and far more important than the price which he ultimately obtains. I am sure that the taxpayer is not likely to complain about the sum of approximately £4 million which goes towards those subsidies.
The same thing, however, does not apply to the £44 million or so which go towards the increased Estimates for cereal production, eggs, fatstock and milk. The sum of £20 million in respect of cereals is due, of course, to the general fall in prices, as the Minister has pointed out. But I doubt whether the world market price of wheat is such as to require a subsidy of this magnitude. I believe that the cost of production of wheat and barley could be reduced considerably by modern methods of cultivation, by use of fertilisers and by combining.
My own experience of wheat-growing a few years ago, when I first started combining, was that the cost of production could be reduced by 3s. to 5s. cwt. and sometimes more, depending upon weather conditions and output. Grain drying on the farm, moreover, can abolish the cost of drying at the port silos in the event of a wet season. I understand that there are farms where the cost of wheat production is equal to and even lower than the cost of wheat production per acre in Canada. Unfortunately, this is the case only in a few places, but I believe that the extension of these methods, and of others which modern agricultural science and engineering can produce, can enable us to meet these costs and face lower prices on the world market and thereby reduce subsidies. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how far these better methods are being introduced.
The Supplementary Estimate includes £32 million extra for eggs. We ought to

consider that figure most carefully. I doubt whether it should continue at this figure especially when one remembers that last year we were dumping eggs into Europe below the cost of production and creating a serious grievance amongst European producers against us.

Mr. D. Marshall: Would the hon. Member have the same complaint about various feeding stuffs bought from Europe which may or may not be subsidised from time to time?

Mr. Philips Price: I quite agree. We have our grievances, too. French wheat, subsidised by the French Government, comes here.
One of the good things which I see in a Free Trade Area in Europe is that it may be possible to regulate, by agreement between the countries of Europe, the quantities and prices of agricultural products which pass between this country and the Continent and among the European countries themselves. This whole question of subsidising, and in consequence of dumping below cost, between one country and another, is something which I hope the Free Trade Area, when it conies about—as I hope it does—will help to stop. I hope that that again will help us to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of these subsidies and thereby encourage more efficient farming.
I am glad that an Egg Marketing Board has been set up. One of the ways in which we can reduce costs and thereby lower subsidies is by securing the more efficient working of the poultry industry. Progeny testing and efforts to eliminate disease should be carried out by the Egg Marketing Board, just as the Milk Marketing Board has done so much for the dairy industry by enabling farmers to improve the efficiency of their herds. At present in the poultry industry this matter is left very much in private hands. The day-old chick stations where the best kind of chicks are produced are a private enterprise only. They are very good as far as they go, but they require assistance from a national body like the Egg Marketing Board.
Further research into the elimination of such diseases as fowl pest is required. This is still a serious disease, particularly in Lancashire and other northern counties. Can the Minister tell us whether


the Egg Board has been able to make any plans for the work to which I have just referred?
As regards the third big subsidy, £75 million for fatstock, although this is an increase of only £3 million, the total amount is colossal. The Minister gave us the figures for the division of the subsidy between cattle, sheep and pigs. I feel that the subsidy for fat cattle and sheep is the one about which least complaint can be made. Our feeders have to compete with the Argentine, with its vast prairies and lower costs of production. They have also to compete with New Zealand, which produces lamb and mutton in a climate where the grass grows all the year round, thereby decreasing costs with which we cannot compete. Here, I think, the subsidy is more than justified, because it will also be a contribution towards dealing with the surplus milk.
In this respect, we have an extraordinary situation. Thanks to the present efficiency of our dairy industry, and because our dairy farmers have learned so much and have used science to such an extent, we are practically swimming in milk. We really ought to be considering other ways of using our cattle. For instance, it is time that the dairy farmer considered whether he could not cross his lower yield milk cattle with Hereford or Aberdeen Angus bulls, and thereby have his dairy herd side by side with a beef herd.
I am a great deal less happy about that part of the subsidy which bolsters up the price of pigs. I believe that something is being done in the right direction, but is it enough? On previous occasions I have called the attention of the Minister and his predecessor to the relative inefficiency of our pig industry compared with that of Denmark. I have argued that our cost of bacon production is much higher than in that country because of the relatively poor quality of our average commercial pigs compared with those of the Danes.
At last, we have a Pig Development Board, which, I hope, is making progress in progeny testing and in investigating food conversion rates with a view to enabling the commercial farmer, as

distinct from the person engaged in showing, to be able to get the best possible stock for the most efficient conversion of food into bacon or pork. If that work were more widely extended, costs of production of bacon and pork would be considerably lower, and the £29 million we are now having to pay could thereby be reduced.
Then there is the question, referred to by the Minister, of the heavy bill we have to pay for imported feeding stuffs for keeping the pig and poultry industry going. Unlike dairy cattle which can consume some of the home production, this side of the industry is largely dependent on imported feedingstuffs. Last week, I put a Question to the Minister asking what percentage of foreign ingredient there is in the average cake and cubes imported into this country or manufactured at the ports. The Answer I received from his Joint Parliamentary Secretary was 25 per cent. home grown, which means 75 per cent. foreign. That must be a serious strain upon our balance of payments, and it emphasises the vital need of growing as much as possible of these feeding stuffs ourselves.
Unfortunately, we are up against another interest here. The port millers are concerned with selling their products, and whether the ingredients are home grown or foreign does not matter, although I know that they are taking a certain amount of home-grown production. They produce these cubes very conveniently, and the modern labour-saving milking parlour, where one presses a button or turns a handle and a certain number of cubes go in equal to the quantity registered for the animal, results in much easier handling than dealing with meals, home-grown on the farm. That is another problem which I have watched in the countryside, so we must try to discover what we can do to popularise the handling of home-grown feeding stuffs.
I am sure that neither side of the Committee grudges money spent on agriculture but, as guardians of the public purse, we must ensure that the money is spent wisely and used to increase the efficiency of the industry. I believe that British agriculture has shown that certain aspects of it can stand up to foreign competition, but I hope that I have given evidence to prove that there are still weak spots and that this bill ought to be lower as time goes on.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: In following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), whom we all respect and whose depth of knowledge we appreciate, I must admit that I was worried at the trend of his speech. It appeared to me to have much more of a radical-liberal trend than possibly either side of this Committee would follow. Indeed, his argument on the question of the sum we are voting today for wheat appeared strange to me. When all is said and done, the sum we are voting today arises from the Annual February Price Review, and has a direct relation to the world price of wheat which could not have been foreseen at the time. If suddenly we rather begrudgingly meet our obligations. I can see no other result than to cause anxiety to the British farmer.
I am not sure that I go all the way with the hon. Gentleman or, for that matter, with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) over the question of imported feeding stuffs. I notice, Sir Gordon, that although both hon. Members took into account the balance of payments, external currencies and, eventually, the ultimate cost, both ignored something which has a degree of importance, namely, that ultimately the laws of nature can never be reversed in this House or anywhere else. What we take out of the land must be put back into it, so ultimately, if from time to time we are putting more than the amount back into the land than we take out, there will be a certain degree of advantage, although I do not want to exaggerate it.

Mr. Philips Price: Is not what the hon. Member is arguing liberalism and laissez-faire with a vengeance?

Mr. Marshall: Not to the same extent. I hope that none of us will suggest that the obligations of the February Price Review are too heavy to meet.
I am afraid I was also considerably worried by the speech of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who always has my respect. I think that his speech caused anxiety to all of us who have the farming industry at heart, as I know he has. When he put through the Agriculture Act, 1947, we all knew that the objective was to

give a form of surety and guarantee to farmers. The principle in that time of scarcity was to keep down prices.
Consequently, what might be called the quid pro quo had to operate in a time of a drastic fall in world commodity prices, while giving a reasonable living to farmers. I was worried when the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, and I think that these are his words, that he thought that the country would be not only extremely worried but possibly not willing to go on with a subsidy of the type of figure at which it is at present running.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member has not completed what I said. My approach was not what he has implied. What I said in effect was that on this side of the House we supported the Treasury balancing contribution; in other words, we were content with the deficiency payment; but that if imported food prices fell, home-produced food prices must fall in sympathy. We think that the consumer ought then to get some advantage from the falling prices, the Treasury continuing to be the stabilising influence for the producer.

Mr. Marshall: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made that a little more clear, although, of course, he would not be in order in developing exactly how he would operate that—something which he might find difficult to explain.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the matter of getting more people to drink milk. He suggested that the Milk Marketing Board, which is a producing board, is not doing sufficient to promote the drinking of more milk. That may be so. I do not know, but one would have thought that the Milk Marketing Board should do everything possible in that direction.
When my hon. Friend initiated this part of the debate, which is the heart of the Votes we are discussing, he said that it is very difficult at the beginning to estimate the exact cost to the Treasury. We should appreciate certain things from that. Although the majority of hon. Members are prepared to meet these obligations in order to have and to maintain a healthy farming industry, at the same time the Treasury has to meet a sort of blank cheque.
It is wise to reflect on that. It may well be that the Minister and his colleagues are rightly and properly focusing the attention of the Government and hon. Members through a telescope upon inflation. Sometimes, when one looks through a telescope one misses a shadow; and that shadow might be deflation, and we must not blind our eyes to the fact that in a world deflation the amount which will ultimately flow from tile February Price Review will increase.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the fact that during 1956–57 farmers accomplished a magnificent achievement by producing just on 60 per cent. of our food. That achievement is even greater when we consider that when we talk about our farmers we talk about only 3 per cent. of our working population. For 3 per cent. of our working population to produce nearly 60 per cent. of our food supply is indeed good.
At the same time, we should also realise that although the income of the nation between 1948 and 1956 rose by 24 per cent., the income of farmers fell by 8 per cent. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind, because one of the things to which he referred was the increased efficiency of farmers. Although the Government by the 1957 Act increased the general stability of farming, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not forget one psychological and very important point which is that if one wants increased efficiency at any time in any business, one should not leave the feeling that every time efficiency is increased the total amount of that efficiency is taken into account and taken from one. That is not the way to get efficiency. It is worth remembering that since 1948 the farmer has been one of the few people in the community not to become better off.
I want to refer to two items in page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate. The original estimate for home-produced wool was £1 million and the revised estimate is £1,500,000. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider during the coming months introducing a new method of marking sheep at the time of certification for subsidy to enable ancient earmarks to be used without the risk of disqualification for subsidy. Referring to the £500,000 for the calf subsidy, I should

like my right hon. Friend to take into account something deeply felt in my constituency.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is only a Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member cannot discuss the subject of expected savings.

Mr. Marshall: I was pointing out that if different Measures were introduced there might be further saving, but I will leave that matter.
There are two things in page 9 to which I want to refer. The first—in B.3—concerns pigs. The present position of the pig market and the fact that the amount which we would ultimately have to vote to support that market has been swollen have already been mentioned. I am afraid I cannot completely agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) in his rather wide view that a very large number, or indeed the majority, of our pig breeders are inefficient. In answer to what the hon. Gentle-said, I think the danger here is that we cannot have a review of any form of stabilising factor primarily based on the most efficient in the industry. If we were to accept that principle, it would be a very poor day not only for the small farmer but for the average farmer in the United Kingdom.
Despite what has been said from the other side of the House, I should like to ask the Minister whether, in an attempt to lower this particular estimate in the future, he could give further consideration to the introduction of a pig scheme. I am quite certain that there are a number of people who may not agree with me here, but I am equally certain for my part that the important part of breeding pigs is to get a high quality of pig, as well as to produce more pigs for our own use, instead of buying bacon from Denmark. Such a scheme might give a degree of stability, without so much aid from the Treasury.
In Class VIII. Vote 3, Sub-head B.4, relating to milk, excluding milk welfare schemes, reference is made to the Milk Marketing Board, which the right hon. Member for Don Valley also mentioned. Here, the only point I want to make is this. Although I know that the Milk Marketing Board is a producer board, and I realise that the agricultural industry as a whole wishes it that way, the


ultimate power really lies with the Minister. I am sure that the Minister himself, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and most hon. Members are extremely worried about the future of the small farmer, and I should like my right hon. Friend to take into consideration the suggestion, which is not generally agreed in the farming industry, for a differential in price with regard to milk.

Mr. Peart: What has that got to do with the ultimate power resting with the Minister? Does the hon. Gentleman not want the Minister to interfere or decide?

Mr. Marshall: I will certainly reply to that. There was a debate only a year ago on this point, in which the suggestion was made that this had nothing to do with the Minister at all, since the Milk Marketing Board was a producer board. In certain conditions, however, concerning the Milk Marketing Board, the Minister can decide a question in the national interest and say certain things should be done, and I am only pointing out that the Minister has that power.
The last point I want to make is that I hope the Minister will realise, when considering all these matters both for the present and in the future, that although in passing these Votes tonight we and hon. Members opposite are solidly behind them, we are even more solidly behind the farmers of this country.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Dye: It is both a pleasure and a practical thing to have a farmer as Minister of Agriculture, and I found the speech which the right hon. Gentleman gave us today interesting and enlightening. Perhaps he and others of us who are farmers may find it embarrasing at times when we are engaged in voting money which will come to ourselves, but I will try to deal with these matters objectively and from the national point of view.
In listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), I thought he was criticising some of these Estimates and blessing certain others of them on the basis of how he and the farmers in his own neighbourhood were faring. I think we have to take a broad view—

Mr. Philips Price: May I point out that that was not in the least in my

mind? I tried to look at the whole question from the national point of view.

Mr. Dye: I am only saying what impression it made on me. I have also read criticisms which I have seen in certain journals that are published nationally.
The Minister has pointed out the need for increased production. Therefore, it is quite clear that the case for increased subsidies is based on the greater quantity produced. It is because there has been a greater quantity produced in this country that there has been a fall in the market price, and it is our home production which has made as big a contribution to the fall in the price of our imported food and feeding stuffs as that which is brought into the country. I think the nation should recognise that because we are now increasing our production, that is one reason why we pay less for imports, because in the open market we need less from abroad and the greater quantity produced here means that we have to pay less for imports. Therefore, the nation is getting the advantage.
What worries me is that that advantage is not passed on to the consumer, as, for instance, in the case of wheat. The increased subsidy on wheat is estimated at roughly £9 million, and we know that the millers have been buying their wheat at £3 or £4 per ton cheaper than they did in the previous year. Why is it that milling offals, for one thing, and flour and bread, for another, have either been higher in price or at the same level? This is the kind of question to which we want an answer.
In the February Review, as I understand it, the Minister goes thoroughly into the costs of production here at home. Why should not he go just as thoroughly into the costs of the milling industry and others which receive this cheap wheat and cheap barley? As I understand it. British brewers now buy their barley, by comparison, £3 or £4 per ton cheaper than any other brewers in the world. Why is it, then, that there is not a lower price for the final product after it has gone through the brewery?
We cannot go on with a system of guaranteed deficiency payments in this country if the result is not to bring a direct benefit to the consumer. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member


for Gloucestershire, South that we should look for further cuts in the income of farmers as a result of the deficiency payment. That seems to be pretty hopelessly wrong. We have gone thoroughly into the costs of production in every aspect of British agriculture, and have agreed that the guaranteed prices are fair, but if we look over the past years, we see that there has been a decline in the estimated income of the farming community, as well as a fall in the value of the money received.
After all, every £1 which the farmer gets now is worth only 16s. compared with its value when the Conservative Government came into power five or six years ago. He has had to face a decline in the value of money and also in the total amount received. It does not seem to me that this is the time to reduce the guaranteed prices to the farmer, and thus reduce the subsidy. The great question is: Why are not these lower market prices passed on to the consumer to a far greater extent than they have been hitherto?
I have mentioned wheat and barley. Those who purchase barley from our farms are getting it at a cheaper rate. Barley is being exported from our East coast ports to the Continent and is being subsidised. As I understand it, as there is a surplus of barley Continental merchants can buy that barley at the current market prices and use it on the Continent. Hitherto, speakers from the Treasury Bench have said that that was a good thing that it was taking some of our surplus barley away and was consequently holding up the price a little. If that is so, why should we not export more, and keep up the market price at home? If my hon. Friend wishes to reduce the amount of subsidies or deficiency payments, that would seem to be the only way to do it. But he and others complain that a smaller proportion of our home-grown grain is going into feeding stuffs for our dairy herds, pigs and poultry.
On the eastern side of the country, far more than 25 per cent. of our home-grown grain goes to feed the pigs, cows and the rest, because we grow more, and one must also take into account the cost of transporting it across country to the animals in the west. This is a practical economic problem.
The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have referred to the problem of pigs. The right hon. Gentleman has always taken a great interest in his local Press, as I do. In the Eastern Daily Press of yesterday, there is a very interesting letter which appears under the heading "Bacon Prices." It reads:
In The Farmers' Weekly this week we read that Mr. Hare, the Minister of Agriculture, has 70 sows each producing three litters a year through early weaning. On another page we read that Mr. Hare said that the reason for low bacon prices was over-production.
On the assumption that Mr. Hare's sows average seven pigs per litter he is overproducing by 500 pigs each year.
Surely this is a very bad example for the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to be saying, we are over-producing, please try and reduce such things as bacon, milk and eggs.
Perhaps it's the case of don't do as I do, but do as I say.—Your faithfully, E. W. Bell.
We have to ask ourselves whether we are producing too many pigs for the nation's needs. If so, we must decide what steps to take to limit their number. I do not think we are producing too many; I believe that the pig and bacon industry is not properly organised to deal efficiently with production. The advice given to Her Majesty's Government by various committees in the past has been proved wrong. If we are ever to have an efficient bacon industry, supplying the British public with the kind of bacon it likes and is prepared to pay a decent price for, we must follow the example of the Danes and link the producers of pigs directly with the bacon factories which they supply, whether as shareholders upon a co-operative basis or by contract.
It is all wrong to have the Fatstock Marketing Corporation as an agent between the producer of pigs and the bacon factories, switching supplies from one factory to another each week. Until we ensure that the producer is producing the right pig and supplying his factory regularly on a contractual basis, we shall never get either the right quality of pig or the quantity that we need.
Secondly, we cannot go on any longer with a large number of inefficient bacon factories scattered all over the country. We must reduce their numbers. It is most uneconomic to have a bacon factory with a 25 per cent. through-put. The Ministry must seek as quickly as it can to reorganise the production of both


the bacon pig and the pork pig, regulating that production by agreement with the producers, so that there is a constant flow to meet the needs of the nation. We must not have—as we always have had in my lifetime, and long before it—periods of over-production and low prices alternating year by year with periods of under-production and high prices.
I believe that we can overcome this problem, but if we are to have a satisfactory bacon and pork industry, without having these high subsidies, we must reorganise the industry as quickly as possible so that we can meet the needs of the consumer in a decent way.

Mr. Godber: I am following the hon. Member's argument very closely, because it is a very interesting one, and I know that his opinion is genuinely held. He has explained how he would reorganise the bacon pig market, but will he now explain how he will link up with it the pork pig market?

Mr. Dye: That is quite a tall order. The failure of pre-war days arose because, although we attempted to control and organise the bacon pig sector of the industry, we left the pork pig sector free. Certain pig firms are offering long-term contracts to producers of pork pigs and large hogs to meet the kind of trade which they can supply. I see no reason why we could not register all pig breeders and factors and so have a record of their output of pigs and how it is coming on to the market, so that a regular supply could he sent into the butchers' shops, pork factories, and the rest.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member has quoted the method adopted by the Danes. He will agree that they market their pigs by means of voluntary co-operatives and not through any compulsory marketing board. It is a completely voluntary system. There is no interference by the Government whatsoever.

Mr. Dye: That is so, and I also know from my visits to Denmark that the system has been established for many years. It has been built up that way. If our forefathers had been as far-sighted and had built up our industry in the same way we should have been as wise and as rich as the Danes. Our problem is how to transfer from this silly auctioneering system, about which the hon. Member for

Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) knows so much and which has been the main system of marketing here, to a system similar to that which operates in Denmark. We know that it will not be quite so easy for us. They are organised mainly for an export trade, but we must try to organise to supply our home consumers and there is a variation in taste between people in the north, south, east and west of the country and between various counties. If we can for once get away from the silly system of the auctioning of fat-stock as the best method of price settlement, I am sure that we can devise a much better system to deal with pigs, cattle and sheep.
On Tuesday, I had to decide how many fat cattle from the yards were to go to the butcher this week. I decided on five. They did not go to market, they went straight to the slaughterhouse at the purchaser's expense. So I am getting at farm price dead weight for the cattle which I sent. I think that a good system, and I am prepared to give it a fair trial. I want to see the same kind of thing operated throughout the country.

Mr. Baldwin: That is done by the F.M.C.

Mr. Dye: No, it is not the F.M.C. I could use the F.M.C., but its slaughterhouse is further away and I should have to pay the cost of getting my cattle there. Why should I do that? Surely the hon. Gentleman will not argue that we should have a monopoly for the F.M.C.? Why should I not be free to send my cattle where I think they are most needed?
I ask that, with a new attitude towards this problem, we should be just as serious in scrutinising the costs of distribution after our stock has left the farm as we are in reviewing the costs of the farmers at the Annual February Price Review. If we take that as a general principle, I see no reason why we should not go into the costs of distribution, marketing and manufacture of stock after it leaves the farm. That in my opinion will be the next step that a Labour Government will have to take, unless the right hon. Gentleman pays more attention to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked us what we would do if we were not proposing to do the same as the Government are doing, which requires us to give some explanation of the Labour Party's view on these


matters. But I do not wish to trespass too far from the point or I shall be called to order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite will begin to think constructively about marketing in view of the public concern about the size of subsidies and the concern of farmers about how long they will continue.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I shall not delay the Committee because I understand that I shall be out of order if I talk about the matter I wished principally to discuss, namely, Class A, Vote III, Subhead A.7, and the failure of my right hon. Friend to spend £1 million on encouraging the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme. However, I wish to say something about Subheads A.2 and A.1. I welcome the increase in spending on fertilisers, but this increase will be utterly wasted unless there is a marked improvement in field drainage. The Committee will observe that we are spending about £2,500,000 annually on field drainage and this evening we are being asked to vote another £250,000 for this item. That money will be wasted unless my right hon. Friend is prepared to face this problem in all its aspects. If he were to ferret about in his desk he would find a most excellent Report which was produced by a distinguished constitutent of mine who used to represent half my division as a Member of this House. I refer to Sir Arthur Heneage.
If my right hon. Friend examines that Report, he will realise that this money will be wasted unless he faces the problem of getting the water away down the main watercourses. Unless that is done, we shall be burying tiles and money. I know that my hon. Friend has not implemented the proposals in that Report because he has failed to obtain a sufficient measure of agreement between the National Farmers' Union, the County Councils' Association and the C.L.A. I hope that he will try to break this expensive stalemate. If the Report I have mentioned is not acceptable, I hope that my right hon. Friend will investigate other measures to instil some sort of order into our system of land drainage, which is such an important thing in the part of the East Midlands which I represent.
I wish also to refer to the marginal production assistance grants. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will find that there is considerable overlapping in the money that we spend on these grants. The whole country is now covered by the provisions of the 1957 Act for capital improvements. We have also the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts to help in the improvement of land.
I will not weary the House with detailed calculations because the way in which the Treasury grant is paid on various subsidies is extremely complicated: but perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider the case of a man who intends to improve some grazing under the Hill Farming Acts by direct reseeding. Having had a grant on that score, he decides to take a cover crop of oats off the land before he does the direct reseeding. He is entitled to a grant for ploughing up grassland and a marginal production grant. If the Minister looks in detail at the example I have given, he will find that the net cost to the farmer for such an operation is practically nothing. It amounts to about £1 or £2 an acre. I consider that there is a certain amount of overlapping between the hill farming and livestock rearing grants and the marginal production assistance grant and there is room for considerable savings.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Unlike most of the hon. Members who have spoken, I am no longer an active farmer and I wish to consider the general atmosphere of this matter from a different angle. What fills me with alarm is the kind of defeatist, deflationary, restrictive atmosphere which is here apparent. We are told that there is too much milk and too much pork produced. I seem to remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) saying that he knew of no better investment than pouring milk into babies. That hopeful atmosphere seems to have gone. The idea is no longer, "How do we use this additional milk which we are so fortunate to get?" Now the idea is, "How do we stop getting it?" and, "How do we stop getting pork?"
Periodically in our history this sort of thing happens to us. It happens when we have a tired Government which, rather like a jockey who has been riding a horse


at full gallop, feels, "I must pull up this brute; it will be so much easier to control it at a jog-trot." Instead of managing an expanding production, it is felt necessary to slop it, because the figures are getting on top of us. Broadly speaking, that is what is happening.
I know of many occasions in English history during which the £ has retained its value; they have been miserable periods of hunger, lethargy and recession. When the £ has lost its value, those have been periods of activity and movement. I remember the speech made the other day by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), when he said that we had attempted too much. I thought he should have catalogued what we had achieved: leadership in the industrial field of atomic energy, the Welfare State, and sufficient ground forces to stabilise the future of Europe. He told us that this had involved a drop in the value of the from 20s. to 12s. I venture to say that no nation ever got better value for eight "bob".
This is the attitude with which we should approach agricultural problems. We should ask what we want from our countryside and from our farms, not how we can get them budgetarily a little cheaper by getting less production. The attitude behind the subsidy policy is that we must reduce production because extra production is budgetarily expensive. That policy should be reversed, We should want from our countryside as much as we can get. In point of fact, we get only about half what we need. The other half has to be imported. We should arrange things so as to get from our countryside as much as it will produce, subject only to the limitation that farmers and workers should not be given too large a share, an unfair share, of the total product which has to be distributed among the people.
What has been happening under the policy of which these Supplementary Estimates are the culmination? Has this policy encouraged the maximum production in the countryside? It has not. It has been turning agriculture into a declining industry. Let me give the Committee a few important figures. It is no use talking about so many millions if we do not know what so many millions will buy. The share of the national income

that agriculture had up to 1952, the year when the last Price Reviews of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had worked themselves out, was approximately 2·9 per cent. It was that in 1948 and remained stable throughout the period of the Labour Government. Since 1952 it has fallen to 2·8, 2·4 and 2·3, and is now 2·2. That means that the farmer has lost one-quarter of his share of the national income since 1952. That is the result of the present policy.
Is that because the farmer has failed to improve his efficiency? The Minister paid a tribute to farmers and said that the way in which farming efficiency had been improved was magnificent. The figures prove that. I can give the Committee the net productivity figures. Since 1948, the productivity of agriculture has gone up by 40 per cent.

Mr. Godber: The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be quoting. Would he tell me what he is quoting from?

Mr. Paget: I am quoting from figures obtained for me—I am most grateful for them—by the Research Department of the House. I asked for the agricultural productivity figures and the share of the national income taken by various industries. Taking 1948 as 100, productivity in 1949 was 104, in 1950 it was 106, in 1952 it was 120 and now it is up to 140. Against that, the general figures for industry have gone up by only one-half. Since 1948 the efficiency of industry as a whole increased only by 20 per cent. Last year it actually went down. There was lower production per man employed and per capital unit.

The Chairman: This argument is going rather beyond the Supplementary Estimate. The policy has already been agreed to.

Mr. Paget: The share of the national income depends upon the amount of commodities produced, and that calls for the Supplementary Estimate. An argument directed to showing how and why productivity has reached a certain level above the original Estimate or below it should, therefore, be in order. I suggest that my observations upon the general farming situation are relevant to that question of the level of production, which governs the Supplementary Estimate.

The Chairman: Yes, but I am trying to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the question at issue upon a Supplementary Estimate is concerned not with policy but with why the Department has spent more than it asked for. The original policy was decided long ago. We should try to keep to the reason for the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister asked the Opposition to state their policy and that was really going a bit wide.

Mr. Paget: I merely say that the result of the Government's policy has been reduction in the farmer's share, in spite of the fact that his efficiency has increased. If Government policy takes from agriculture the value of increased efficiency, it must be clear that to continue that process makes agriculture an ever-declining industry. That is what has happened with every Conservative Administration this country has had. Each time the industrial side of the party gets control, and every time the countryside is let down. I have seen it happen a number of times in my lifetime. It has happened every time we have had a Conservative Administration and that is precisely what is happening now.
This subsidy system as distributed in these various ways in time will have to give way to a contract system, a system whereby we purchase from the farmer at a price—a price, after all, is only a symbol for the distribution of goods—which gives him a fair share of the national income, and the goods which we get on that contract, for which the public pay, the public should be responsible for merchanting. As it is, these Supplementary Estimates are not really subsidies to the farmer. Overwhelmingly, they are subsidies to the middleman. The more strongly organised middleman will always get the loose money hanging about and that is the person to whom this is paid.
The National Farmers' Union has stood supinely by watching the industry decline. It will really have to pull up its socks and put up a fight for the farmers. This smooth thing is not working any longer and it is time they agitated. We have a tired Government and can only get it out of its inertia by kicking it.

Mr. Hare: Does not the hon. and learned Member know that agricultural production last year reached an all-time record, 60 per cent. higher than in 1939?

Mr. Paget: Of course, the more we inflate, the more we go on doing so. The right hon. Gentleman surely does not think we are actually going backwards yet with the amount of capital which is invested? It would be a total disaster for this country if we did not move forward at all, but we are going slower; we are coming to a stop. Agriculture is getting less labour because the efficiency which agriculture has achieved is taken away from it and is not made available to it so that it can offer a competitive wage. We are getting less capital for agriculture because it cannot get the return. It is grinding to a standstill. The Minister says with pride that we had a record production last year. We had an extremely good harvest and it is going forward. [Laughter.] Of course we had.

Mr. Godber: If the hon. and learned Member will forgive me, he said he was now out of farming. I think that has some bearing on his knowledge.

Mr. Paget: Although it was a record harvest, it was a difficult one to get—an extremely difficult one, but very productive—anyway in the part of the country in which I am interested.
I have been diverted, but I was concluding by saying that unless some active measure both by constituency Members from the countryside and from the National Farmers' Union, whose job it really is to exercise some pressure on the Government, stops this process of saying, "You have got to absorb more and more additional cost in your efficiency, instead of using your efficiency, as every other industry does, to recapitalise and improve your wage structure", we shall drive the industry to the depression which we have always seen it go to in similar periods.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I have sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he says he wants to see a thriving countryside and producers producing as much as possible, but when his remedy for this large Estimate, which I find a matter of some concern, is to nationalise distribution, I think the result would be a very much larger Supplementary Estimate.
In the course of his speech the hon. and learned Member made allusion to a speech made from the very spot on


which I am standing by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) last week when he said that we have been trying to do more than our resources could manage. I want to use those words in a different context and in an argument to which I believe my right hon. Friend would not wholly subscribe. I believe it is a matter of great concern that, certainly for cereals and livestock, these Supplementary Estimates show a total which is a record, at least since 1954, which is the basic year to take.
I think that is due to the fact that Her Majesty's Government have been trying to do too much. They have been trying to do three things—give support to the agricultural industry, to maintain the links of trade with the Commonwealth and to encourage importation of agricultural goods from Europe and other foreign countries. All three objects are in themselves practicable and, maybe, desirable. It is possible to pursue two of those objects at the same time with success, but I suggest to the Minister and the Government that if they try to do all three at the same time they will fail both the farmers and the Dominions and cause a certain amount of suspicion among those European countries which are exporting agricultural products to us.
I make my survey of this matter by looking at 1954 as the basic year. I noticed that when The Times made a comment on these agricultural subsidies it headed the article
A higher output and lower prices.
It may be that for some commodities The Times was speaking accurately, but, keeping to the narrow context of cereals and fatstock, I want to show that in Supplementary Estimates which are of record size that is not true. The production of wheat in this country declined between 1954 and 1957 by 183,000 tons. In fact the guaranteed price to the farmer has been reduced by 1s. 5d. per cwt.
One of the reasons for this huge Supplementary Estimate for cereals—£9 million representing wheat—is that imports of wheat compared with 1954 have increased from 69 million cwt. in 1954 to 90 million cwt. in 1957. The curious fact is that the average price of imports of wheat has been 1s. per cwt. higher in 1957 than in 1954. The reason for the £9 million is that in 1957 French wheat coming in just

at the time when our English wheat was being harvested was coming at a price of 20s. 3d. per cwt., which was 3s. 4d. per cwt. less than the price it was averaging in 1954. That is the factor to which I want the Minister to pay particular attention. If large quantities of foreign wheat or any other foreign cereal are thrown on to the market just at a time when the British farmer wants to harvest his produce, it must mean that these deficiency payments will be unduly exaggerated.
We have very nearly the same story with barley, except that, with the encouragement of my right hon. friend's predecessor, farmers have been asked to grow more of their feeding stuffs. As usual, the British farmer has made a great response and has increased his production of barley by about 350,000 tons. While he was increasing his production, imports of barley into this country increased from 18·6 million cwt. in 1954 to over 20 million cwt. The barley from the Commonwealth came into the country at a similar price, but the cheap foreign barley did harm to the British farmer, brought down the price which he realised and increased the deficiency payments.
That is why we are facing this heavy bill for deficiency payments in cereals. The farmer is not getting more; in many cases he is getting less. The fact is that we have a glut of cereals and as a result we are having to export barley, although this in itself is a good thing because we are exporting at £26 a ton whereas some of the foreign barley being brought to this country is as low as £19 a ton. In the circumstances the export of barley is a saving to the Exchequer for which we ought to be grateful.

Mr. Paget: Surely the whole case which the right hon. Member is making is the very case which I made for the Government to be the importer. If the Government merely buy the balance that they require, then if they buy it cheaply the advantage which they get as a buyer will be passed on to the farmer in the subsidy payments.

Mr. Turton: There is a great deal in what the hon. and learned Member said, but I have found over the years since the war that the Government are always very expensive buyers. I do not want to get into that controversy for I should


be out of order. I am simply asking that when we look at the Supplementary Estimate we should realise what is the evil we must cure.
Certainly in cereals the lesson is that imports from the Commonwealth are brought into the country at times which are convenient to British agriculture and at reasonable prices, but imports from the Continent are brought in at an inconvenient moment and at very low prices. In the year we are considering the British farmer received 28s. 5d. for his wheat. The French farmer received 38s. 9d. but French wheat was being brought into this country at 20s. 3d. Bearing that in mind, I should have thought that it would give anybody who looked at the problem cause for considerable thought to see whether we can take action against the import of that French wheat at such low prices.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Is the right hon. Member saying that he is in favour of import controls? That is the only answer.

Mr. Turton: That is not so. The hon. Member forgets that a Bill is down to prevent dumped goods from being brought into this country. If foreign agricultural goods are being imported at prices well below those which the foreign farmers are receiving, it may well be a matter to consider whether the Government should take action.
The figure for livestock, too, is a record estimate. There is only £3,500,000 in this Supplementary Estimate but it brings the figure to £75 million. Why is that? Our production of pigs is some 40,000 tons lower than in 1954. It is true that the feeding stuffs formula has been changed, but the farmer is getting only 8d. a score more than in 1954. The reason we have these large deficiency payments and the reason that bacon factories are finding it very hard to sell the bacon is that there has been a very considerable increase in the quantity of bacon imported. The increase was 700,000 cwts., comparing 1954 with the present day. Are we to allow our industry to collapse because the Dane, having failed to send his bacon to Germany because the Germans have put up their duties, is selling it in this country

at 10 per cent. below the cost of production in Denmark? That is a matter to which the Government must give earnest attention.
Turning to fatstock, the extraordinary thing is that as far as I can see the farmers in this country are receiving a lower price for their fatstock than farmers in any other country in Europe. It is true that our home production has increased since 1954 by 58,000 tons but here, too, imports have increased. The amount of imported beef—fresh, chilled and frozen—has risen from 268,000 tons to 457,000 tons. This means that we have more beef in this country, and that has depressed the price of beef on the market, especially with Argentine beef being imported at a time when we have the autumn flush of British beef.
The main reason for this huge Vote in the Estimate for fatstock is that the average price of Argentine imports fell from 8 guineas a cwt. in 1954 to £7 5s. 0d. a cwt. this year. That has meant that the Government have had to pay out this large sum in subsidies.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the right hon. Member be good enough to repeat the statement which he has just made? I think I heard it correctly, but I should like to be assured that he said that the Danes were importing bacon into this country at 10 per cent. below the cost of production in Denmark. Was that the statement? If so, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give us the authority which he has for quoting the figure? It is an extraordinary statement.

Mr. Turton: I have stated that and I stand by it. As it comes from private conversation I would rather tell the right hon. Gentleman privately after the debate than state the source of my information in Committee. When I have told him I think he will appreciate my reasons for this.
The country is faced with a very great problem. Everywhere throughout the Commonwealth we are being told, "You are not such a good market to us as you were". The reason is that we are becoming the dumping ground for these agricultural surpluses of Europe and the Argentine, which are being dumped in this country. In the Supplementary Estimate there is a very large bill for the results of foot-and-mouth disease, which


was entirely due to these excessive and indiscriminate imports from the Argentine.
Before it is too late, I beg the Government to think over this line of policy. It is a very expensive policy for the taxpayer. It may be that the consumer gains slightly by some of these dumped agricultural goods that come in, but neither the farmer, the taxpayer nor the Commonwealth gain by it, and I believe that the time has come when we should not be trying to do too much in this direction.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave a welcome to the new Minister. Perhaps I, on behalf of not a small number of people engaged in agriculture, may join in those good wishes. I do not say, of course, that we shall always agree with what he says, but I can assure him that on other grounds, apart from the general line of policy, the main part of the industry will be prepared to go a long way to help him.
Now I want to address a personal word to the Minister. Before he arranges another open day on his farm he should take a course of lessons on how to handle little pigs. I noticed that the R.S.P.C.A. was very annoyed to see a picture of the Minister holding up small pigs by their hind legs. But I expect that he will put that right before again inviting the journalists to his farm.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Supplementary Estimate was necessary because of the difficulty of predicting future needs. That is true, but I think that it would be extremely helpful, and might obviate a future Supplementary Estimate, if the Minister could give some indication to the Committee of production trends. I do not ask him to say in so many words what will or will not be required of farmers in the year ahead, but I think that, not merely for the information of farmers but of the general public as a whole, it would be well if he would give some indication of the lines on which his mind is working in relation to general production.
It may be that before this debate is over, the Minister will be able to give such an indication. It would be of enormous help to know what he is expecting of farmers next year, and where he wants reduced production. If that were carried

out as far as possible it might, as I have said, avoid the necessity of the Government asking for considerable additional sums next year.
The price of compound fertilisers is too high. There is a considerable variation in the prices charged to the farmer, and I suggest that a Ministry investigation into this matter would be fruitful. This is the more necessary as the Estimate includes a considerable sum for fertilisers. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that the 1957 Act fortified the guarantees. I do not want to be ruled out of order, Sir Charles, but as the Minister said that, I should like to remind him that the new Act does not fortify the guarantees but makes it possible at the next Price Review to reduce them. If the reduction is carried out to its full extent, the farmers will be receiving a good many million £s less next year than they have received in the year we are considering.
In that connection, I think that it is most unfortunate that this Supplementary Estimate should be debated on the eve of the Annual Price Review. I say that because we have heard all sorts of rumours of how the farmers are then to be treated. I suggest that bringing this Supplementary Estimate to the Committee at this time is bound to tell against the farmers when they present their case at the Price Review.
Whilst I rejoice that there is considerable harmony in this Committee on the main points, and whilst I support the Supplementary Estimate, my chief concern is to make sure that what happens from now on, and particularly at the February Price Review, does not affect the wages and working conditions of the men for whom, at times, I am privileged to speak. Much has been made of the tremendous increase in agricultural output, and the industry has every reason to be proud of that, but it is often overlooked that that has been achieved with considerably fewer men. Over 100,000 men have gone off the farms, yet production has stood up well. It is true that the increase is due partly to increased mechanisation, but it is also due in large measure to the very fine type of men that we have on the farms today.
It is sometimes mystifying, not only to the general public but to the farmers just where these subsidies go, and perhaps I


may, at this stage, read to the Minister an open letter addressed to him, which appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times. It reads:
Dear Mr. Hare, I read in the papers how the subsidy paid to all farms above five acres comes to an average of £1,000 a year. I have a farm above five acres, and last week I got what is called a deficiency payment—which is the same as a subsidy—of £58. I keep some hens, too, and I reckon I get another £50 subsidy on them, and what I want to know is who gets the other £900.
Perhaps the Minister could put in a bit of homework, and provide the writer of the letter with the information. He may be one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. He signs himself "A Very Small Holder", and adds the postcript:
I am not against getting subsidies, Mr. Hare. Please don't think that.
I think that it is just as well that little farmers like that, who are, perhaps, having a hard time—and, it may be, facing increasingly hard times in the years ahead—should make known what they are thinking. Although there has been unanimity in this debate, a little explanation to the general public as to where the money goes and what it achieves would go a long way towards helping matters in the future. I accept the Supplementary Estimate, but I hope that the Minister will be able, during the year ahead, to lay down a line of policy that will obviate the necessity of a Supplementary Estimate on such a high scale as this.

6.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I cannot believe that I really heard aright what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) said. It seemed to me that he said that the 1957 Act made it possible for the Minister to reduce the guarantees. He should know—because he said the same thing that I did when the Bill was being considered in Standing Committee—that that is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr. Gooch: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished what I have to say, I will give him an opportunity to reply.
The fact is that the 1957 Act limits the amount by which any commodities guarantee can be reduced. Further, it limits the total amount by which all commodities can be reduced. The position previously was that any commodity and all commodities could be reduced by any amount. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the difference between the truth and what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Gooch: With regard to these guarantees under the 1947 Act, although there was not a limit either up or down, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the guarantees were not reduced. The Labour Government stood by their word, and the farmers received the full guarantees to which they were entitled. I served on the Standing Committee dealing with the 1957 Measure, and he knows very well that the Government can reduce the total value of the guarantees by not more than 2½ per cent. in one year or any particular guarantee by not more than 4 per cent., less an allowance for the costs. The hon. Member may put his own construction upon what is contained in the Bill, but farmers' incomes next year can go down to 2½ per cent. below last year.

Colonel Richard H. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour Government kept their word and did not reduce these subsidies. When did they give their pledge or promise to the agricultural community not to do so? It was not until the 1957 Act was passed that the agricultural community had any guarantees.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that in the nine preceding years under-recoupment has averaged about £15 million per annum, but under the 1957 Act under-recoupment this year can be £30 million?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I will not argue with the right hon. Gentleman about these figures, because I have not any figures at my fingertips with which to counter his.
To revert to what I was saying, what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has just said confirms that what he previously said about the 1957 Act was not the case at all. I am very glad to hear from his own lips the confirmation that the Committee has now heard.
I would like to revert for a moment to what the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said towards the end of his speech. He remarked on the possibility of a pig marketing board. I think that, in general, I am in agreement with what he implied. He also seemed to imply that the Government by now should have done something about instituting such a board or encouraging farmers to institute it. Surely, if any Government sets up a responsible and knowledgeable committee to look into a branch of an industry like this, they would not be right as soon as they have received the committee's report to do or recommend to be done precisely the opposite. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this matter must be reconsidered, but I do not think that the Government in the past would have been justified in setting up, or encouraging to be set up, such machinery.
The Minister mentioned in his opening remarks the liberal import policies which led to consumer choice. I think we are all in favour of consumer choice, where it is possible, without damaging our own industries. I am coming to the stage now of seriously doubting whether this liberal import policy is not already damaging our own agriculture. The support system is excellent in theory, but I think it is evident that it is not very easy to carry it through in practice. One of the greatest pointers that I can see in that direction is the fact that this support system gives an adequately rewarding living to those who can farm on a moderate or large scale, but it gives very little return to the small farmer. As the small farmer is by far the greatest by majority of numbers, and is believed by many experts to produce a greater quantity of produce than all the big farmers put together, I think it is time that we gave greater consideration to him.
There is a great deal of inconsistency of thought in this matter. People say that as a trading nation our object must be to remove barriers to international trade rather than to erect fresh ones. If we restrict imports from other countries, those other countries will restrict our exports into their own territory. That is true, but, on the other hand, I do not think that should make us dogmatic about our own policy, for at the same

time as we are saying that to ourselves, we are saying to our friends in Europe, when we discuss the European Free Trade Area, that agriculture will be excluded as far as Great Britain is concerned. What does a statement like that mean except that we hold in reserve powers to protect our agriculture?

Mr. Gooch: Does the hon. Member complain about that?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I do not complain about it in the least. I think it is time that a little more thought was given to this question of protection in addition to support.
May we, for instance, consider our own pig industry, which has taken a quite large share of the revised Estimate that we are considering this evening. We have recently imposed a 10 per cent. tariff. What is that other than protection? What is that other than going against the liberal import policy? That is why I say, do not let us be dogmatic about how we protect and support agriculture generally. Let us be prepared to use all the weapons at our disposal to ensure that our farmers get a square deal and that the method of giving our farmers a square deal is not burdensome to the public through taxation, to provide support and at the same time make for a prosperous industry.
People in general, in the industry and outside, are talking of a surplus of milk. The difficulty, of course, is that production has over-reached the quantity which can be consumed as liquid milk, and the price for manufacturing milk is inadequate for the producer. I am convinced that many of the ways of increasing milk consumption have not been adequately explored. To mention just one of them, at the risk of being out of order, the use of milk in ice cream could be increased. I understand that ice cream contains very few milk products, fresh, dried or preserved. This is something which could well be looked into, so that we might not, in future, perhaps, have to spend quite so much on milk price support. It would be a great help in the work of the Milk Marketing Board if the Minister took the powers open to him to see that the use of milk is extended.

Mr. Woodburn: And a help towards getting better ice cream.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: It is the small farmer who faces most difficulty, because his efforts are restricted; he cannot twist this way and that in order to follow the vagaries of the market, because his products are usually restricted to the three separate items, pigs, milk and eggs, two of which at the moment are not showing up very well. I hope that greater consideration, perhaps even to the extent of differential support prices, will be given to the problems of the small farmer, who, after all, is the one who so much needs assistance from the Government.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Johnson: Unlike those who have spoken so far, I make no claim to be a "political peasant", so I shall confine myself very strictly to the Estimates and address myself to page 6, Class VIII, A.1, General Fertilisers Subsidy, an additional sum of £1,600,000, and A.2, Lime Subsidy (United Kingdom), an additional sum of £650,000.
Reverting to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), I should like to tell him that, in spite of not being a political peasant, I listen often to farmer constituents in the marts, and I have understood from what they tell me, and I accept, that each year they will have a diminution of 2½ per cent.—not less than 97½ per cent. of what they were having in the way of annual subsidy and that no one commodity amount will be decreased by more than 4 per cent. That is what I am told and that is what I accept, from the farmers who tell me of what they will be receiving at the hands of the Government, which is alleged, of course, to be a bulwark of the farming community.
I join with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in pleading for the small farmer, and I hope to add a few remarks on the subject when I discuss the lime and fertilisers subsidy. The small farmer is the one who really makes our countryside what it is, and, without saying too much about the essential social fibre of the nation and our need to have good yeomen in the countryside, it is plain to all that the small farmer must be helped to gain a good livelihood and remain in being.
My last comment, before I come to the Estimates as I promised to do, is this. It is interesting to listen to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, remembering who

they are, to hear them, behind their own Minister, being so nervous about his policy. They are asking for controls, for example, controls against cheaper imports of Iraqi barley, and against this and that coming in. It is astonishing to see how nervous they are about what they term the "liberalised" policy of their own Government.
The Minister spoke about our spending too much upon imported feeding stuffs; but I wish to speak of the need for more spending—of additional sums each year upon the fertilisers subsidy. The fanner has done a magnificent job. We have heard that total output is up 60 per cent. since 1938, the norm which is taken. In the two years, however, there has been backsliding in this matter of animal feeding stuffs, and we have been importing something like £50 million worth of animal feeding stuffs, which means, probably, £100 million of foreign currency lost. The industry has lost in what one might term its exchange-sparing function.
In this respect if some of the leaders of the National Farmers' Union spoke less about under recoupment and a little more about their members being more efficient through the use of fertilisers and application of lime they would make a contribution to improving the financial situation better than they have done in the past.
The Minister said also that standards of efficiency have never been higher. There is no doubt about our best farmers being good, but, if we apply the standards over the whole of agriculture, we can see that it would be possible quite economically to double the pre-war level of production.
Is it a fact that we still have about 12 million acres of permanent grass, whereas an area less than half that—we have heard about Danish and other land—would, by Continental standards, be almost an extravagant use of land? Is it not also a fact that our fertiliser usage is miserably low, despite our having to find these additional sums under heads A.1 and A.2, apart from the initial figure of £31,750,000? Even then, we are using very much less than is used on the Continent by Germans, Dutch and Belgians.
Therefore, while I accept and support this expenditure, I ask the Minister to pay


attention to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) about how much we are really paying. We are being asked to accept this Vote of an additional £2¼ million. Is it £2¼ million worth of value in fertilisers to farmers, small or large, or are others, middlemen, getting a disproportionate amount? If the latter, how much? How much of that money is represented in the true value and content of fertilisers to agriculture?
The figures of tillage crops are more satisfactory than the picture presented by the figures for grassland. I have already mentioned comparison with the Continent. Among Western European countries, only France has an off-take of nutrient from its grassland lower than ours, despite our more favourable natural conditions. We have heard about climatic and soil conditions here, but I am told that we could increase our output by anything up to 25 per cent.—perhaps even up to 40 per cent.—in nutrient value per acre of grassland.
These things to which I have referred can be done through this Vote, which indicates to us the amount which is used and the amount which ought to be used. My comment is that farmers are asking for less in this Vote than they should be. If they were using more fertiliser, the Vote would be higher, and we should then be perfectly happy to vote the money. An investment of this kind is as valuable as an investment by a motor car company extending its shop floor in Coventry. This would be a real investment. After all, we are here discussing but £21 million; the cost of a battleship is four times as great as this Supplementary Estimate. In the sense that we talk about expanding the shop-floor to make new machines, or about building a battleship, these subsidies are as good an investment as any in improving the material standards of our people.
The subsidies enumerated in Class VIII, such as those under the Subhead A.6 for marginal production assistance grants, A.10 subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle, and A.11, silo subsidies, amount altogether to tens of millions of pounds, but of course they do not amount to a comprehensive agricultural policy. The present Government have no such policy. This is hand-to-mouth year-by-year

estimation. It is living from expediency to expediency. We must spend more money on investments in improving farm services, getting to the hard core of the conservatism in farming, and raising the less efficient farmers to the level of the better ones. We must spend money on effective land settlement policy, to bring the best human material into practical farming. We must also spend more money on farm improvement schemes and on time and motion study on the farms—work study to improve efficiency of the fiscal equipment and layout of the buildings.
We ask farmers and their wives to work in conditions in which no one in a city would work. We have the proverbial city slums, but there are worse slums in the countryside. We talk about small farmers needing help. The money is provided in these Estimates, but I should be happy if far more money were voted, certainly in this respect of fertilisers, lime and farm improvement schemes. The Minister said that we had a 10-year plan, costing altogether £50 million, for farm improvement schemes. Let us get on with that plan and bring our agricultural industry up to something like the level that we demand of the factories. The small farmers are particularly handicapped in this respect. They could do much more with more help.
We have no real policy. We have these great subsidies which all too often bring opprobium on the industry. I should like to see an efficient, mechanised, up-to-date industry which would then not need half of these crutches to lean upon. It can be said of the fertiliser subsidies that they are a help towards better farming. In that way they are an investment, and I support the farming grants and subsidies enumerated on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) declares himself, I hope with modesty and not with distaste, as no political peasant. I am quite sure, however, that he has listened very carefully to the farmers in his constituency. I am even surer that he has been listening with great profit to his agricultural advisory officer. I am certain that many of the things he said about improvements


and about the techniques that should be carried out will sink home to his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman said that we had no policy. The policy, broadly speaking, is one of deficiency payments, which results in the large Supplementary Estimates that we need today. I accept them because they are implicit in the policy, which is that food in this country, is, generally speaking sold upon the basis of world prices delivered in. Nevertheless, the first notice I had of these Estimates was the usual newspaper headline "Another £54 million for farmers." That gives rise to some unfortunate misunderstandings. Hon. Members today have made it perfectly clear that they are not subject to these misunderstandings, but not everyone reads HANSARD and various misconceptions are likely to follow.
One misconception is that farmers are getting over and above what they expected originally. As we know, that is quite wrong. Farmers are, in fact, getting as much as and no more than was guaranteed to them at the Price Review in which, let us remember, they incurred extra costs, which were not repaid, to the extent of about £24 million. The farmers are carrying those costs.
One should say here and now that the return which the average farmer gets—and I believe that it is true at any level—for the ability, the management, the work and the capital which he puts into his farm, large or small, is less than he would obtain in almost any other activity. We must face that fact. It is one of the difficulties, and one of the things which rightly make farmers anxious about their position.
The second fallacy which tends to arise is the suggestion that the extra payments on guaranteed prices in some way reflect the relative inefficiency of the British producer. In fact we know that these payments are due to the fall in world prices. In a way, it is misleading to talk of Estimates when we are dealing with deficiency payments. The definition of an estimate is "an approximate calculation based upon probabilities." Who are we to talk of probabilities when we do not know what the world prices of these primary commodities will do? They move quickly, depending very often upon the action of other Governments.
I should like to look again at the cereal figures. An addition has been made to the original estimate of £25 million, and the total is now £45 million for cereals this year. The average yearly payment for the last three years worked out at just over £31 million. That sudden swelling in the size of the payment demonstrates the difficulty of estimating accurately. It encourages the fallacious criticism that the British producer of cereals is not as efficient as his Continental or overseas competitor.
My first comment on that point is that, on pure grounds of husbandry, the British cereal grower is vary high in the world table. We are always beaten by the Danes, but in barley-growing we are consistently second to them and in wheat-growing we vary from third to fourth according to the year. We grow nearly twice as much in yield per acre as do farmers in the United States or Canada. It is as well to remember that when one is looking critically at home achievements.
A third fallacy is that it is thought that other countries produce at a cheaper cost than our own guaranteed price, because their food is sold in our free market, and that the home producer abroad is getting less. But it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain adequate comparisons.
Some of us have been trying to look into the economics of wheat-growing. It is remarkable in how many countries the foreign producer is receiving a higher support price than in this country. I have averaged the very significant figures given me by the Parliamentary Secretary on 2nd December, 1957, for the three years 1954–5–6, in various countries. For example, against our British price for wheat, which averaged £30 5s. a ton, the Belgian farmer has been averaging as a support price £33 10s., the French farmer £36 8s., the West German farmer £35 18s., the Swedish farmer, slightly less, £30, the United States farmer, with the advantages of scale and so on, £27 2s.
Some of the export losses on the production of those countries are remarkable. As we know, France has been exporting consistently at an average loss per ton of £13. Even Sweden has an average export loss of £2 16s. and the U.S.A. has been exporting at an average loss of £3 14s. That is the reason for this large cereal deficiency total. I would like it to be


realised more widely that British cereal-growing is not inefficient but is in the very top rank of the world.
On some commodities there is a gap. Milk has been mentioned. Our average guaranteed price at the last Price Review was 3s. 2½d. a gallon. For a very keen competitor, the Dutch, it is 2s. 4d. There is a margin of difference there which we must progressively narrow if we are to compete in the milk manufacturing market. That 10½d. a gallon happens to be equivalent to the cost of between two and three pounds weight of the bought concentrated feeding stuffs usually fed to cattle.
The increase in the Estimates comes mainly from the fall in world prices, as we know, but it also comes from a greater throughput, because each Price Review puts the British farmer on piecework at a rate for the job—so much for the score, so much for the ton. As he tries to increase his competitive power and maintain his income the one thing he can usually do, which is sound economics, is to increase his throughput to obtain a lower unit cost by spreading the overheads. That is why, when the guaranteed price has been reduced, the actual outturn of milk, pigs and eggs has shown a sharp increase. That is all right as long as the food is taken up, but if consumption, broadly speaking, does not keep up with production, the market price is driven down and again there is the result of the increased deficiency payment.
Unfortunately, in the case of food demand is relatively inelastic. There is a good example of that in the case of eggs. When last year the price of fresh eggs fell to about 2s. 3d. a dozen, consumption showed little increase. We are consuming an average of rather more than four eggs per head per week. If our consumption had gone up to the American level, it might well have been that most of the eggs would have been consumed in the English market and the output flow to the Continent reversed.
We must consider whether the question of living off surpluses in the wholesale market has gone too far. Is it good for the consumer? The consumer is having food at the world price, which includes a downward movement due to the element of surplus. Therefore an unmeasurable sector of these Estimates must be regarded as a consumer subsidy. This is demonstrated by the fact that so low did

the price of eggs fall that it was worth the while of traders to buy them in England, take them to the Continent, and sell them there, because the Continental housewife was setting a higher value on the egg than did the English housewife.
That is where I think the consumer has a part to play in the solution of this problem. If we, as a mainly industrial nation, decide that we will have a liberal import policy, for all the broader reasons and to give consumer choice, then we are also rightly committed to support the home producer by means of deficiency payments, and we must say that we want him to have the first, place in our market. Then, to complete the circle, the consumer must pay some attention to British produce and consciously seek to buy it, subject to making all the right demands for quality and so on.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? He is speaking in support of his right hon. Friend in advocating a liberal import policy. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Hill: Letting the consumer have a free choice of the world's foods as they come in. However, though he is free to choose anything, he can at least show a certain preference. One may be free to choose as between the British egg or a foreign one, but if we get into the habit of asking for a British egg, it will probably be found that this is the best support from the consumer angle that the egg producer can get.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that British agriculture should find its place on the free market? I am not surprised that he should say so since this was pre-war Tory policy, but it is strange to hear that being enunciated here this afternoon.

Mr. Hill: I am only saying that in relation to the liberal import policy which allows food to come into the wholesale market. I shall have something to say about some elements of it in a moment, but, in so far as it comes in, if the consumer responded to a drop in food prices by taking more and also by exercising more consciously pro-British purchasing influence, British food would be taken up and, for instance, we would eliminate some of our bacon trouble.

Mr. Willey: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): If the hon. Gentleman desires to discuss policy, he must relate it to the Estimates.

Mr. Hill: Coming back to the Estimates, Sir Norman, we are wondering why they are so big. I was trying to explain that one element in them is that the consumer price falls right down. I would like to quote in that connection from The Times of 24th January:
It can hardly be a good thing in present circumstances that the consumer thinks that food can be obtained much more cheaply than in fact it can, and that almost all consumers should be paying for it an additional sum of which they are normally unaware and which they cannot precisely assess.

Mr. Willey: Now that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Estimates, he, will forgive me for interrupting, because this is a matter of particular importance at the moment. Are we to understand that this is the policy which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing at Paris at the moment in the O.E.E.C. discussions?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Member knows as well as I that I am not a Member of the Government and that I am speaking from my own knowledge, such as it is, and my own beliefs. All I am trying to say is that I think that the consumer needs to pay some attention to what is produced in British agriculture and should demand the things that she wants from it, and should support it. That is her part of the job.
Like many other hon. Members, I hope that we can do something to stimulate further reliance on home-grown rather than on imported feeding stuffs. It would be out of order to detail possible ways of doing that, but there are many which we may have to consider. We do not know all the facts about this year and we do not know on what total volume of foreign feeding stuffs this Estimate is based, but in the last Price Review, the forecast figure for the year 1956–57 was 6,100,000 tons. We do not know what the final figure was and still less do we know whether this year's figure will be in excess of that of the 1956–57 figure, but it is obviously substantial.
If it is a large one, we must look for possible extra ways for encouraging the use of home-produced feeding stuffs and notably swinging more and more to grass-fed produce. Comparisons with the

policies of other countries may suggest ways to us. West Germany has a way and the Dutch have a method within their domestic agriculture policy. At the moment, we are relying solely on the farmer's choice, but it appears that the ability to draw on an easy flow of imports tends in total to lose some of the beneficial effects of import saving which agriculture as a whole achieves. For that reason, I hope that as we look to next year's Estimates we will investigate ways of reducing the total cost of the imported raw materials of agriculture.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Hayman: I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) will forgive me if I do not follow all the ramifications of his speech. It was no doubt very clear to him, but it was not conveyed to us in a way which permitted us to assimilate it. He seemed to be making the old, cheap food argument—let as much as possible come into the country so that the housewives are free to choose. The housewife is not free to choose with the incomes of millions of workers being cut.
These Supplementary Estimates amount to about £54 million, which is a tremendous sum. For instance, it is ten times the amount the Government got from the imposition of the 1s. prescription charge. Agriculture expenditure now amounts to about £750,000 a day.
The comparatively small sum of £250,000 is devoted to field drainage and I join with those hon. Members who have asked what happens to field drainage projects after they have been completed and paid for. Do the Government see that the work is not allowed to fall back into decrepitude?
The sum of £1,600,000 is to be spent on fertilisers. Is an efficient check kept on the claims for fertilisers? I was alarmed to hear that one of the Minister's main objects—and that of his predecessors—has been to cut down staff. Those of us who have worked in offices know that checking claims for this purpose is a difficult and lengthy process involving much overtime. If staff is cut, something goes short and I am afraid that this matter may be one of those things. In Cornwall, we have sand dunes with a high lime content and I think that the sand qualifies for a subsidy. Are claims for subsidies for that kind of fertiliser


carefully checked? I have no reason to suppose that there is anything wrong, but from time to time these matters should be thoroughly checked.
I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in stressing that there is a big difference between the imported price of cereals and the amount which the farmer gets and has to be made good by subsidy. The amount for wheat this year is £15 million, but the housewife, the consumer, does not appear to be getting the benefit of falling world prices. That is something which the House will expect the Minister to examine carefully.
There is an Estimate for milk of £3,300,000. Much has been said about the falling consumption of liquid milk, but it is obvious that with a rising number of unemployed, quantities of liquid milk—

Mr. Hare: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but no one has said that there is a decline in the consumption of milk. There has been no increase in consumption.

Mr. Hayman: As the national income and the population have been increasing, the consumption of liquid milk ought to have increased. I am alarmed about this matter, because in my constituency unemployment amounts to 8 per cent.
Small farmers have been mentioned and it has been asked whether they have been getting a square deal in the Price Review. Some of us wonder whether the time may not come when we have to consider carefully to whom this money is paid—especially if there are cuts in the social services. I support the suggestion for differential payments. Some of these subsidies ought to be more seriously considered, because the small farmer may not be getting a square deal. In Cornwall, where the chief products are milk, pigs and eggs, we are suffering a decline in prices.
Four years ago, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave me some figures to show that an average of 1,650 small farming units were absorbed each year into larger farms and that farms of more than 300 acres were benefiting. That amounted to a rate of ½ per cent per annum. I do not know whether that rate is increasing. I imagine that it is, because in the last year or two small

farmers have been claiming that they have not had a square deal from the Price Review.
We are asked to provide a very large sum in respect of pigs. The pig and bacon situation is chaotic. There are two bacon factories in the town in which I live, which is also in my constituency, and I am reliably informed that they are working to only 30 per cent. of their capacity at this moment, even though they are taking in pigs irrespective of grading. It seems to me that if the industry has come to this state of affairs in the year 1958 the whole of the business needs to be looked at very carefully.
The farmers want orderly marketing. I am quite sure that it is not their desire that hon. Members should be coming to the Committee today to increase the subsidy Estimates by £54 million. It seems to me that on this item of pigs, consideration ought to be given very carefully to the possibility of the establishment of a Pig Marketing Board. The bacon factories will not be there in the summer, to take pigs going for pork in winter unless they can have a decent throughput throughout the year. Therefore, orderly marketing ought to be the chief preoccupation of the Minister in this sphere in the time ahead.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I will confine myself as far as I can closely to the Estimates, and in doing so I shall follow the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). In his opening remarks, I think he must have frightened the Financial Secretary to the Treasury out of the Chamber, because he said that he was frankly disturbed by the size of these Supplementary Estimates. I must say that by any standard £45 million in this Vote must be a large sum.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, when he opened this debate, said that £13 million of this £45 million was attributable to rises in costs which the farmers were granted in the 1957 Price Review. That still leaves a very large sum to be accounted for, and I am thinking back to the time when we were passing the 1957 Act. Then, I think during the Committee stage of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were putting in a floor for the farmers,


so that they would not have an abyss below them. Now, I am afraid, the abyss is below the Treasury, and it could be a very serious one.
In saying this, I do not mean that I do not support a very full support programme for our farmers, but I shall try to analyse what I consider are the causes of these large Supplementary Estimates being asked for today, and I shall then endeavour to lay before my right hon. Friend some suggestions about the course of action which he should be able to take in limiting the Exchequer liability.
As I see it, the causes are, first, that the United Kingdom is traditionally and at the present time the world's main importer of foodstuffs, and at the moment marginal surpluses are emerging in certain countries which traditionally do not export to us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton paid particular attention to this point with regard to wheat, and I am going to give a certain number of details as an example concerning butter.
On page 9 of the Vote now before us, Subheads B.1 and B.B.2, relating respectively to cereals and eggs, are both for large amounts, but the cause of these large amounts in both cases is the same. In Subhead B.1, we read that the main cause is—
from a general fall in market prices
and in Subhead B.B.2. we read the same thing—
takes account of a fall in market prices".
I believe that here we have the kernel of the problem which this Committee is discussing today. This general fall in market prices is responsible for the difference between the £13 million which the farmers were awarded in the Review and the £45 million which is being asked for in this Estimate. I have said that I consider that the fall in the price of butter was due mainly to these marginal exports, and I will give one specific case, not because this country was the nigger in the woodpile, for that is not the reason at all. I give this particular example because that country uses exactly the same currency as ourselves, and when we are considering the costs of production in other countries and the costs of exports from those countries, it is essential that we should consider a country where one can compare prices on a reasonably level

basis. In countries such as the Argentine, there are, I believe, more than ten different rates of exchange which can be quoted.
Taking the case of butter and the marginal exporter, there is the Irish Republic. The domestic price in the wholesale market last October was 438s. per cwt., but the export price to this country was 275s. per cwt. One can see that the export price on the London Produce Exchange was approximately 30 per cent. below what is estimated as the wholesale price within the exporting country.
Other examples can be taken of the same thing, but my point is that these marginal exporters, who do not traditionally export butter to us, have been depressing the price and therefore weakening our support price programme. That is particularly the case with butter, because it comes out of the context of a surplus of milk, and the reason why I am making this point is to emphasise the reason for the very low prices which have been obtained for many things on the London Produce Exchange.
During the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill, as it then was, on 25th March last year, I referred to the words "standard quantity," and I said:
It is right that the Minister should include in the Bill provision for standard quantity because I do not think that any Government can hold prices indefinitely against the law of supply and demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 836.]
On that occasion, I instanced the fact that we have a standard quantity now relating to milk. I believe that my right hon. Friend might do well to look at standard quantity and see whether it might not become applicable to commodities other than milk. These Supplementary Estimates are for a very considerable amount of money, which I believe the farming industry finds embarrassing. I do not mean that I do not fully support the programme of support prices for farmers in the general context, but that they must not become too great a burden upon the general taxpayer.
The other suggestion which I should like my right hon. Friend to consider is in connection with the imported commodities which we are now buying through the London Produce Exchange at prices less than the cost of production.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement about standard quantity. Will he not make perfectly clear to the Committee what he has in mind, and what consequences would flow from the acceptance of the principle of fixing standard quantities? This would mean, in respect of each of the products of the agricultural industry, a fixed quantity up to which a particular price would be paid. Is he prepared to do that? If so, how would he divide it out amongst the various producers in the country?

Mr. Temple: With respect, this method is adopted in the milk industry. The Milk Marketing Board operates it. But it was envisaged under the Act that these words "standard quantity" would become applicable to other commodities. I am not telling my right hon. Friend how to bring this about but reminding him of the powers that he has under the Act.
The other point upon which I should like to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is in asking the Minister to look at the anti-clumping duties as set out in the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. I believe that the situation of farmers having exportable surpluses throughout the world may be transitory. I hope that this is the case, and that the underdeveloped countries will take up their share of world exports when their purchasing power becomes greater. That is obviously the right course. At the moment, however, the produce from these marginal producers is coming on to our market. I therefore suggest that to deal with a transitory emergency it is worth while looking at the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act with the object of considering the enforcement of certain anti-dumping duties where necessary.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened with interest to this debate, and it is wonderful to me to realise that I have listened to about seven or eight different policies for agriculture since I have been sitting here, waiting to catch the eye of the Chair, since three o'clock. First, one hon. Member says that we should make use of the anti-dumping powers possessed by the Minister in order

to stop food coming in; next, another hon. Member says that we should let these world surpluses come in until we can get a balance, and then another hon. Member gives us a lecture upon navigation while the ship is sinking. We do not want a lecture on navigation at such a time; we want to do our best to rescue British agriculture.
It is a strange economic fact, as shown by the Estimates, that while farming production is going up income is going down. We get much erudition about finance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members opposite who say, "We shall pay miners increased wages only if they increase productivity," but the poor farmer who increases his productivity has his income reduced. What kind of Government is this? The sooner they get out the better. I am not snuggling up to them. If any of my hon. Friends wants to do so—misery can acquaint one with strange bed-fellows—let them snuggle up; but leave me out in the cold.
The purpose of this debate on the Civil Estimates is to ask "Why?" and "How?" The Government object to our asking questions, but they do not tell us the truth. They hide it, and we have to screw it out of them. Let us try to screw a few facts out of them about these Supplementary Estimates. One hon. Member said that we should not let the world think that the farmers are receiving these incomes. We know that the farmers are not getting them. As I have said scores of times, the richest jewel in the Tory crown consists of the farmers and the country people of Britain—but let us see the depths to which the Government are prepared to allow British agriculture to sink for the sake of high finance in the City. Let us see what support the Estimates provide for the small farmer.
I will take one subject which I consider to be of importance in really rural Britain—my part of Wales—the additional sum required in respect of field drainage and water supply grants. Only £250,000 extra is required, as compared with the £32 million for eggs. I agree that the amount in regard to eggs is a notional figure, because when the egg scheme came in it was not possible to obtain a proper figure. But only £250,000 extra is required for a basic essential to


British agriculture, namely, land drainage and water supply.
In my division, around Dovetail and Leek, I have been trying to get water to farmers. This summer I had to get the fire brigade to take hundreds of gallons of water to cattle dying of thirst. We try to get some common sense into the Ministries by asking the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to combine to make a grant for this poor little parish and local authority, to take water for 300 yards from a main so that it can be delivered to the farms. We have had a delay of about eighteen months. No wonder the additional sum required amounts to only £250,000.
Why is it that in the case of a project where the grant is ploughed back by means of land drainage projects and the laying of water and electricity lines, the Ministry's geometry and arithmetic are not so greatly out as they are in the case of the fertiliser grant, for example? When the Labour Party gets into power we must look into this matter. The money in that case does not go into the hands of the small farmers.
I shall be here at the end of the debate, and I shall want to know why this additional sum of £1 million extra is required for the fertiliser industry. Considering the efficiency of the industry and the mighty chemical combines behind it, why are prices in the industry not low enough to enable more money to be put into agriculture? If the gentlemen in the fertiliser industry are oozing with the same patriotism as that with which hon. Members opposite ooze when they stamp the country with Union Jacks at General Elections their prices should be lower. Why cannot the benefits of better scientific methods and better sources of supply be passed on to the public without there having to be a subsidy in fertilisers?
In the case of marginal production assistance grants only £150,000 extra is required. The Ministry must have got out its slide rules, calculus and graphs. It has done the sum rather well. Why is it only £150,000 out? It may seem that I am putting forward this argument with an element of jocularity, but what I am saying is absolutely true. These marginal production assistance grants could help the small farmers. We do not expect any help for them from the

National Farmers' Union or from the Government, but the backbone of British agriculture consists of the small farmers. The N.F.U. is a pearly palace scattering honours to the people who represent big finance and big farming. The day must come when we organise the small farmers, with their twenty, thirty or fifty acres, who have for centuries been the backbone of the country. In the case of these marginal production grants, which can be of great help to small farmers, the Ministry is only £150,000 out.
I know that the Minister is as serious and as honest-minded a citizen as anybody on this side of the Committee, but I want to know why greater encouragement is not given in respect of these marginal production assistance grants.
Let me take another heading—the subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle.

Mr. Kimball: rose—

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member raising a point on what I have already said, or what I am about to say?

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Member is criticising—

Mr. Davies: I shall give way, but let me sit down first.

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Member is criticising my right hon. Friend for not having made a bigger miscalculation in respect of marginal production assistance grants. He would like to see much more money being made available. I would remind him that when one applies for such a grant one has to do so nearly one year ahead. The applications have to be made in October. Since the Ministry had all this information available I should have thought that it would have been extremely bad if it had made any miscalculation whatsoever. The fact that it is only slightly out does not substantiate the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Davies: They are doing very well, are they not? I thank the hon. Member that is an intelligent explanation. [Laughter.] That has given me information. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are such strangers to the truth in debate that when one of their number makes a perfect answer they are not gentlemen enough to admit it. That was a perfect answer, and I am grateful. I


do not stand up here asking for information like a mountebank. I want to know. Is that strange to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?
Let me come now to my next point—it is time that this Committee was wakened up a little. We have been sitting here up to now like a lot of dreamers. I wish to refer to the subsidy payment in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle, and once again I may get a good answer. I have never looked after a sheep in my life. I know the difference between a shepherd and a shepherdess, but that is all. However, I have seen plenty of sheep in the Welsh hills and in Scotland. Here we have an additional requirement of £117,000. I might be wrong, but I am sincerely asking for information. Three years ago, and indeed when my own party was in power, I pushed the idea of extending sheep farming in Britain. I talked with hill farmers and sheep farmers about it. This summer I took the trouble to be at Petersfield and on the Downs, and I found—

Mr. Kimball: Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to continue to make these misleading statements, even though he may be asking for information about agriculture, when in fact there is no element of subsidy for sheep involved in Subhead A.10. There has been no subsidy for the last three years, ever since the big blizzard. This payment relates only to cattle.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. Thomas): The hon. Gentleman will take responsibility for his own statements. I think that the matter can rest there.

Mr. Davies: I may be a Welshman, but I am also well trained in English. I am reading
Subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle.
That is English, and it is in capital letters.

Mr. Kimball: There has been no payment for sheep.

Mr. Davies: I am not concerned with what the hon. Member thinks but what is in the Estimates, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It states:
Subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle.
By the side of that I can see figures—£1,231,000 and a revised estimate of £1,348,000. I am not a magician, and if by magic the hon. Gentleman can say

that none of that refers to sheep, that is nothing to do with me. I am looking at what the Government tell me, and, apparently as usual, they have not told the truth.

Mr. Ross: The Government are telling the truth and my hon. Friend was in order, if the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) will look on page 8, he will see the matter broken up into various amounts with regard to hill sheep and hill cattle, £5,000 for hill sheep and £112,000 for hill cattle, making a total of £117,000. I think that my hon. Friend has been subjected to a "smart-aleck" attack, that is all.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I have a big cross on the next page of the estimates marking in the amount. I was merely wondering whether the Chair would rule me out of order. I knew that you, Mr. Thomas, will not do so, because I know that you have carefully studied pages 8 and 9 and Subheads A.4 and A.10 and are aware of these figures. But why should I bother to explain that to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, whose first answer was so excellent and whose second answer was so bad?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member read the Scottish figures instead of the English figures, that is all.

Mr. Davies: I believe that we want value for this money, and I am quite prepared, as I think the nation would be, to revive sheep farming. An extension of sheep farming in Britain could be of inestimable value to the nation. From my experience of parts of Wales, which I knew as a child and a young man, realise that sheep farming there and on the Downs and other areas is being closed down. What are the Government doing about that? Are they encouraging the extension of sheep farming, or will they do the same thing as they have done for the past five years—encourage the production of more eggs and then say that the production must be cut; or encourage the production of more pigs and then say that pig production must be cut down? I believe that facilities for sheep farming in this country are being neglected, and I hope that these Estimates will indicate that there should be some development of these facilities.
Actually, up to now every word I have said has been in order.

Mr. Ross: And the only one, too.

Mr. Davies: I thank my hon. Friend, I appreciate that remark very much, because having listened to all the debate, I know it is true.
Land-owners in Britain are asking for increased rents for land, and just as the analogy is that the National Assistance Board now has to pay increasing rents in some cases for old-age pensioners and others, because of the Conservative Rent Act—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not spoil his record. He will be out of order if he develops that argument very far.

Mr. Davies: Were I during an agricultural debate to develop the tragedy of the broken promises of the Conservative Party and the insincerity of its approach to the vital problem of housing the people of Britain, it would certainly be out of order. It is a strange thing that in a debate such as this I should be perfectly in order were I to refer to miscalculations in the Estimates in relation to the housing of pigs, but were I to develop an argument about housing people I should be out of order. However, I believe I shall be in order—I leave it to your judgment, Mr. Thomas—in pointing out that there is a possibility that next year this Government—

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he will be out of order if he deals with the possibilities next year. We are dealing with subsidies for this year.

Mr. Davies: There is a notional figure here of £10, which in itself was out of order when it was put on the Order Paper. But as I do not wish to get myself out of order and upset your Ruling, Mr. Thomas, may I put it this way? In addition to this great increase in Estimates which is necessary to honour the pledges about prices which were made to the farmers—which we all believe to be just—shall we see whichever Government is in power faced with another demand for increases because there is to be an increase in the rent of land? We all know that is coming.
No Government yet has had what I consider to be a fair policy for the small farmers who are the backbone of the

farming industry of Britain. It is obvious from what has been said in the debate today that the Conservative Government have no policy for agriculture. I believe that these Estimates must be honoured, but in future we must investigate the activities of monopolies and middlemen and other types of organisations which are obtaining the profit from this money instead of the small farmers and the men who work hard in British agriculture. Despite what he may think about it, I beg the Minister to look carefully at some of these questions. If he has to make increased payments, let him pay for something that really benefits the people such as land drainage grants and grants for water and electricity. It is in that direction that the real policy will lie. It is not for us to give the Government opposite policies. Let them flounder and stagger to the next General Election, which I hope will be soon. It will give new confidence to the farmers when we have defeated the present Government.

7.51 p.m.

Colonel Richard H. Glyn: I hope the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will forgive me if I do not deal with the first two points he made, concerning a policy for smaller farms and a new policy for agriculture. I should certainly be ruled out of order if I did so. I shall be glad to deal with the last point he raised.
It is important to consider how the need for this Supplementary Estimate came into being. I refer to the drop in world prices. This can be more accurately described as a drop in the prices of food imported into this country. We are almost the only country in the world to allow food to come in without quota and almost without tariff. It is for those two reasons that surplus food from all nations is regularly sent to us to be sold at the best price it will fetch. We are almost the only country in Europe to admit wheat without restriction, to give an example.
Hon. Members have expressed concern at what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) described as the "terrific sum" involved in these Supplementary Estimates. Saving of taxpayers' money is rightly the concern of every hon. Member but I must point out that virtually every country supports its agriculture in one way or another. It is


done by quotas, tariffs, a combination of both, or support prices, which is our method. The British farmer was never given an opportunity of choosing what form of support he would prefer. I am confident he would never have chosen support prices. Farmers do not enjoy having to form up to ask for support prices which other countries give automatically through the working of a tariff or quota system. This is the system which successive Governments—

Mr. Willey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is on an important point, but he should know quite well that bacon has tariff protection. Is it his opinion that that is not a right and proper support?

Colonel Glyn: I said that there were no quotas and almost no tariffs. I used the word "almost" because I am very familiar with the fact that there is a 10 per cent. tariff on bacon, and there are one or two other tariffs, mainly on horticultural goods. I said that the British farmer was not altogether in favour of this form of support, which successive Governments had thought the best for this country.
It is important to stress that the large sum needed for the Supplementary Estimates was caused by the fall in the price of goods brought into the country. One aspect of this matter has not been stressed. Milk prices are guaranteed up to a limited quantity, beyond which milk goes to manufacturers at a low price. Our manufacturing milk price is very low. We used to import powdered milk from Denmark and Holland, which are well-known producers of milk products, but I see that lately we have been able to export powdered milk to those countries and to beat them at their own game.
That remarkable fact stresses the very low price of manufacturing milk in Britain. It is due to the fact that countries which have been selling their milk products here because they could not sell them anywhere else, have been competing among themselves and reducing prices, one against another. I will quote two or three prices.
One of our biggest suppliers of cheese is New Zealand. The Intelligence Bulletin shows that the prices of New Zealand cheese in the London wholesale market decreased from December, 1956, to December, 1957, by no less than £167

per ton. As we consume approximately 200,000 tons of cheese the saving to the nation is about £30 million. The greater part of this saving has been passed on to the consumer. The Cheese Bureau reported last November that the price of some cheese was now below the price of the same cheese before the war.
The same is true of butter, which is also quoted in the Intelligence Bulletin. I understand the second largest import of butter comes from Denmark. The price of Danish butter is down by more than £100 a ton over the last twelve months. If the same reduction applies to all butter, as I believe it does and as we consume each year about 500,000 tons of butter, there is a saving to the nation of not less than £50 million in a full year. There is thus a total saving of £80 million on butter and cheese.
I believe there is evidence that a great part of the saving on butter has also been passed to the consumer. Just before Christmas the daily Press reported that in some parts of London the cheaper kinds of butter were less costly than the more expensive sorts of margarine.

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would indicate, in order that I may be at ease, the Supplementary Estimate under which he is able to refer to butter and cheese.

Colonel Glyn: I am very glad to be able to help you, Mr. Thomas. You will see that Subhead B.4 contains a revised estimate in respect of milk. I shall now come rather closer to the question of support prices and the Supplementary Estimate. I have given examples of what the nation saved. It is right to point out that three-quarters of the saving is in the terms of trade because about three-quarters of our butter and cheese are imported.
The big reduction in the manufacturing price of milk has had two effects, both important. It has caused the need for that part of the Supplementary Estimate which we are considering, and a reduction in the pool price of milk of about 2¼d. a gallon. As we produce about 2,000 million gallons of milk that represents a loss to the farmer of about £20 million. I mention that figure because I do not think it is right when we are considering this Supplementary Estimate to think only of the large sums which fall upon the


taxpayers in respect of agriculture. We should realise also that milk farmers have suffered a loss by this process, which has resulted in so much gain to our import and export balances and to the country as a whole.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: It is with some diffidence that I support these Supplementary Estimates. It is about six years since the Conservatives got into office and I attacked the whole system of subsidies. I described them then as "shots in the arm" which could easily be stopped. I am afraid I rather upset my Front Bench and I know I upset many of my farmer friends, but I have never Altered my opinion since that date and have never had it more confirmed that I was right than at the present time.
I wish that each farmer in the country would buy a copy of HANSARD and read the debate which has been taking place today. I think he would have something of a shock because he would be afraid that he was not now on quite such firm ground as he was originally. I want to reassure him on this. I think he is on quite as firm ground as ever he was, for the reason that no Government of whatever complexion, can afford to let farm production go down. We are today the biggest debtor nation in the world, whereas in pre-war times we were the biggest creditor nation, and although food may be cheap to buy from abroad it still has to be paid for. If we let our home production go down the balance of payments would extend gradually wider and wider. For that reason I am optimistic about the future of agriculture, not because of the promise of any politician, but because of the position I think this country is in.
All sorts of reasons and ideas have been put forward in this debate and I am quite sure that anyone who reads it will be very confused by the time he gets to the end of it. My idea was, and still is, that we should not expect a great demand from the taxpayer of something like £250 million to £300 million, which means heavy taxation and gives the taxpayer a false impression that we are feather-bedding and do not know how to manage our affairs and so on. Agriculture should have the

same protection as any other industry. I have never been able to understand why the biggest and most important industry in this country, and the only industry producing real wealth, gets no protection. It produces from the same land year after year, whereas exporting industries have to get raw materials from abroad and mine the earth to get raw materials. I ask the Front Bench to consider whether the time has come when we should get the same protection from overseas competition that any other industry gets. The motor-car industry is bringing in great revenue, but I believe it has a tariff of about 33⅓ per cent., or even more. I say let us have the same protection.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with the general issue rather than with the subsidies before the Committee at present.

Mr. Baldwin: I am sorry, Mr. Thomas, but I was trying to show that although I support these subsidies it is not because I look upon them as the best method of producing a solution to our farming troubles; but I will leave that for the moment.
We have been told time and time again that we must absorb increasing costs, which come into the calculation at the February Price Review, and absorb them through increased efficiency. Whenever anyone puts that to me I ask, "What do you mean by increased efficiency?" If it means that we should make two blades of grass grow where one grew before and use more fertilisers, I say that I do not look upon the farmer who does that as being necessarily efficient. The farmer is in business to see that if he makes the second blade of grass grow it will be worth while.
We have to ensure that it is worth while for the farmer to increase efficiency and production, but we must not cut him down every time he increases efficiency. Are we efficient in this country? The Economist in October last said that every person in agriculture in the United Kingdom produces £300 per head of the agricultural population; in Denmark the figure is £250; in the United States, £240; and in Italy, £180. Therefore we need an economic industry which does not want all these shots in the arm, but perhaps I am straying a little from the rules of order.
I want to comment on what the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said about the tendency for food prices to remain high although there were lower prices for corn. A question has been asked about the lower prices of wheat not being passed on the consumer, suggesting that although prices on the farm have decreased the benefit has not been passed on to the consumer. If we look at world prices we find that 11b. of bread costs 6d. in the United Kingdom, 1s. 4½d. in the United States of America, 7¾d. in France, 8¾d. in Italy and 1s. 0¾d. in Sweden. Is not that passing on the benefit to the consumers? We have the cheapest food in the world yet we are accused of not having passed on the benefit to the consumer. I do not think the consumer is aware of the facts.
The main part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was to the effect that the Government should have a quota system and buy direct for the farmer and handle the product afterwards, in other words, nationalise distribution. It is interesting to know that hon. Members opposite are still interested in nationalising distribution.

The Temporary Chairman: They may well be, but that is not in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Baldwin: I am simply replying to a previous speaker. He raised that point and I am replying to it.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not trying to be difficult with the hon. Member, but I had not the privilege of being present when the other speech was being made.

Mr. Baldwin: I will leave that question and deal with another point which was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) who said that farmers were better off under the 1947 Act than under the 1957 Act.

Mr. Gooch: So they were.

Mr. Baldwin: I want to dispute that entirely. The 1947 Act said that farmers should be guaranteed prices for what it is in the national interest they should produce. We asked the right hon. Member for Don Valley what those words meant; whether they meant that when prices of goods from abroad were cheaper it would be in the national interest to buy from abroad. We have reached that

situation, and the taxpayer can say that we provide all this money for Supplementary Estimates in order to keep farm prices up. Is it in the interests of this country to buy food from abroad cheaply and let the farmer go west? Fortunately, the 1957 Act has been passed, which gives us a definite guarantee for a period of years. I am glad that we have it.
We have also been told in the debate that we should not buy so much feeding-stuffs from abroad. What do we do with them? In my case, I turn them into bacon. For every £20 worth of feeding stuffs we buy from abroad and which we turn into the manufactured article, we sell the manufactured article for £30. Is it not in the interests of the country that we should buy our raw material from abroad, as the industrialist does, turn it into the manufactured article and sell it? The more we buy from abroad in that way and the more we manufacture, the better for this country.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) challenged us that we were not producing at an economic figure. May I tell him what the farmers on the other side of the water get for their wheat? He will then see that it cannot be said that we are being asked for this big subsidy because we are inefficient producers. The Belgian farmers receive £33 a ton for their wheat.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but no one in the House is responsible for the subsidies in Belgium. I must ask him to deal with the subsidies which the Committee is asked to approve.

Mr. Baldwin: With due respect, Mr. Thomas, I felt that if points were raised in the debate I was entitled to reply to them. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West said that we were not efficient producers. We are the cheapest producers of wheat in the world.

The Temporary Chairman: That may well be, but I can rule only on what I hear when I am in the Chair. Others will rule when they are in the Chair. We cannot have one Ruling set against another. It would be just as well for the hon. Member and the Committee if we tried to confine ourselves to the Estimate. I realise the difficulty, but we must confine ourselves to the Estimate.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. I have been here practically the whole day and I have heard all the speeches. There were times when I was tempted to raise points of order in relation to the relevance of the speeches, beginning with that of the Minister, to the Supplementary Estimate. As the debate has continued longer, the Rulings of the occupants of the Chair have become tougher. My concern is that the Scottish part of the Estimate comes last. I have a feeling that by that time the Chair will allow us to say nothing at all.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. I understood the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) to say that we were the cheapest producers in the world and that other countries were more expensive producers. Is not that an argument—I imagine that this is the hon. Member's intention—that we should abolish the subsidy and not approve the Estimate?

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. and learned Member was not here at the beginning of my speech when I said, "Give us protection and do away with all these shots in the arm and all the rubbish which goes with them. It is an expensive job taking money out of one pocket, allowing it to circulate, with everyone having a nibble at it, and putting it back, diminished, in the other pocket. Let us manage our own business and be treated as a business concern."
I feel very strongly that agriculture is at the parting of the ways. If we are not careful, if we do not approve this Supplementary Estimate and if we do not have a Price Review to match the cost of production, we shall immediately reduce production. There is no alternative. We may be blue-eyed boys in war time when the nation is in trouble. That day may come again. If the Government allow us to reduce production, get our land under grass and do away with our machinery and labour, they will have a very hard job to wind us up again when that time comes.
I beg my hon. and right hon. Friends to use their influence to see that in the Price Review we get all that we are entitled to in order to provide a price which will keep us in business. We are just on the margin. More than half of

the farmers in this country do not receive a farm labourer's income plus 5 per cent. on their capital. If prices are further reduced, they will simply go back to dog-and-stick farming.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I will speak for only one or two minutes, although I should have liked to speak longer than that. A number of points which I wanted to mention would be ruled out of order, and I will try to keep to the rules which have been laid down. I will seek another opportunity to raise the other points which I cannot deal with now.
I want to emphasise a point which has been mentioned several times during the debate but which cannot be overemphasised—that this Supplementary Estimate is an implementation of the promise given by the Government last February in the Price Review on sums which would be reimbursed to the farmers. It is no more and no less than that. That cannot be too plainly understood in the country; the Estimate does not mean any extra money in the farmers' pockets. Perhaps that is not generally understood. We may understand it in the House, but it is as well that the country at large should understand it.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that far from extra money being put in the farmers' pockets, over the last few years farmers have been receiving a decreasing income. The least one can do is to keep the promise of recompense and reimbursement given from year to year in the Price Review. If I am not out of order, may I say that I hope that in the forthcoming Price Review the treatment will be generous in order to maintain at least the present income of the farmers and if possible to increase it?
This Supplementary Estimate, in addition to the original Estimate passed last year, is a small price to pay for the maintenance of a high standard of agriculture in this country. Our production is 60 per cent. higher than before the war, but no one in the debate has emphasised the contribution which British agriculture has made to the solution of our export and import problems. The last figure I saw, some twelve months ago, was about £400 million. It must


now be much higher than that. That should be set side by side with the Estimates needed to maintain that state of agriculture.
There is much more that I should like to say, but I am sure, Mr. Thomas, that you would rule me out of order if I tried to say it. In all that has been said tonight, two things have emerged. First, we are doing no more than keeping our promise—a right and proper promise—to maintain a standard of agriculture worthy of the country and worthy of our great agricultural industry; secondly, the Estimate does not mean that this additional money will go into the hands of the farmers, whose income, in fact, is at a much lower level than it was a few years ago. I hope that the Government will continue in their work of seeing that agriculture is maintained at a proper level, and I should like to commend the Estimate to the Committee.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Willey: On this occasion I can rise with the happy knowledge that I shall not be subject to the Closure moved by the Parliamentary Secretary.
We have had a well-informed debate, which has been coloured by two anxieties. Hon. Members have been anxious not to get out of order and everyone has expressed an understandable anxiety about the future of British agriculture. May I say at once that I am sure that we are all greatly obliged to the Minister for the broad sweep of the speech with which he introduced this Vote. I hope that he will bring to agriculture a new and refreshing approach, because I think that if our debate is subject to any criticism it is that there has not been sufficient recognition of the need for some new thinking about the immediate difficulties of British agriculture.
This debate falls naturally into two parts. The first part deals with the farming production grants, and I want first to say a word or two about those. We are dealing with certain of these grants in this Vote. This Estimate in itself shows an increase of over £4 million, but the original Estimates showed an increase of £3¾ million. Therefore, the first point I would make is that we have had a gradual, persistent increase of production grant, and I think that the time has come when we should review this in the light of policy.
I would remind the Committee that—to take a date that will be non-controversial—in 1952 these grants amounted to £29 million, but if we are to accept this Supplementary Vote they will be running at £76 million. This is important for two reasons. The miscalculations that we are discussing—and I blame no one for them; I realise the difficulty—are not immaterial, because this is part of the Price Review award. Therefore, miscalculations, however understandable, are very important.
The other thing is that we can discuss this calmly because it does not affect the overall award, but, bearing in mind our discussion today, I should have thought that this impingement upon the price incentive was a matter which, at any rate, should have the right hon. Gentleman's very close attention. I want to take one of these production grants by way of illustration—and, again, I am rather surprised that it has not attracted more attention, though some reference has been made to it.
I turn to the general fertiliser subsidy and the lime subsidy. Here, Mr. Thomas, believe it or not, we are asking for £2¼ million more than appeared in the original Estimates, and that sum brings the total subsidy for fertiliser and lime to the enoromous figure of £34 million. It is not enough to say that this may lead to an increase in the use of fertilisers. If the National Coal Board had had a £34 million subsidy, how important that would have been to the British economy.
We are now dealing with a figure so enormous that it really ought to invite some public examination and attention, first of all, as to priorities. But, again, I would remind the Committee that this subsidy was running down in 1951–52. The figure was then just over £8 million. I know that if we want to carry this examination a little further we are in some difficulties because—oddly enough, in the light of this enormous public subvention—this industry is before the Monopolies Commission.
I am in a difficult position. We were discussing this matter on the Supplementary Estimate two years ago, and this industry was before the Monopolies Commission then. This week I was informed that it is not expected to receive a Report from the Monopolies Commission this year. As I say, this places me in some


difficulty, but because of the subvention of £34 million we cannot await the Report of the Monopolies Commission before we inquire into this expenditure of public moneys. It is not enough for the Minister to say that this is leading to an increase in the use of fertilisers. That is a laudable enough objective in itself, but the question is whether this expenditure of £34 million of the taxpayers' money is justified.
The second rather remarkable thing we find is this. The lime industry, of course, is subject to costings, and if we were going wide in this debate I would have something to say about that costings investigation; the keeping in of the very marginal producer of lime, and the cost to the taxpayer. But the fertiliser industry is not subject to costings. It seems rather remarkable that we are putting £34 millions into that industry, and that, as far as the greater proportion of that sum goes, we have not even a costings inquiry.
More remarkable still is the fact that this is an industry that is subject to control. It is not subject to any public control—although it receives this enormous subsidy—but it is subject to control. It is subject to very rigid price control, imposed by the industry itself; and I would remind the Committee that, as a result of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the Commission will not now deal with price maintenance.
To go back to the essential point, it is, as I say, a laudable enough objective to increase the consumption of fertiliser, but the main point is whether this £34 million is being spent in such a way. As it happens, we have a considerable amount of information before us, provided by O.E.E.C. I have examined the figures, and say quite definitely that the case is not proved. I will give just one of the two conclusions that are clear, because this is a matter upon which the Committee would not rest on my judgment. It is one that ought to be thoroughly examined.
I will first mention one or two factors that are beyond dispute. The first conclusion is that the British farmer lags far behind most Western European countries in the use of fertiliser, nowithstanding the enormous sums that have been paid in subsidy over the past few years. The second

conclusion which is unavoidable is more remarkable still. Not only do we lag behind most of the other Western European countries, but the rate of increased use of fertilisers in Great Britain also lags behind that of most Western European countries. I agree that some countries have different forms of subsidies, but there are countries like Denmark that have cheaper fertilisers than we, without subsidy. I would say generally, therefore—and I am asking only for an inquiry—that certainly, on all the information we have from O.E.E.C., the case is not proven.
Notwithstanding the delay in obtaining a Report from the Monopolies Commission we have another source of information. A very distinguished authority, Mr. Frankel, Director of the Agricultural Economic Research Institute, has just completed a study of the fertiliser industry. No one would challenge this as party propaganda; it is a very authoritative inquiry. What does Mr. Frankel find? He finds that this industry, which receives this enormous subsidy, is for all practical purposes, in the hands of two firms—I.C.I. and Fisons.
If we turn to the profits made by those two firms—because that is not irrelevant when we are discussing a subsidy—we find that Fisons have paid dividend at the rate of 15 per cent. over the past few years. That is not a bad rate of dividend for a firm that is receiving a guaranteed market for its supplies, and at a subsidised price. In the case of I.C.I., we find that it has been paying 10 per cent. over the past few years, but 10 per cent. on a double capital. If we look at this industry, on the face of it, at any rate, there ought to be a further inquiry as to whether or not the taxpayer is getting best value for money. It is a sum that has reached enormous proportions.
Mr. Frankel points out, regarding nitrogen, that, as a result of its arrangement with the by-product manufacturers, I.C.I. alone controls 9 per cent. of all the nitrogen produced in this country. I said that it is relevant to consider what the N.C.B. would do with a subsidy at the annual rate of £34 million. Mr. Frankel shows that, in fact, the prices charged by the producers of fertilisers have increased more than the price


of coal. But coal mining is an extractive industry. The fertiliser industry is an expanding industry with a guaranteed market.
We know, too—and this is very relevant to the Vote before—us that in 1954–55 the Ministry of Agriculture estimated that an expansion of the consumption of nitrogen was required to the extent of 100 per cent. increase. What has happened since? The industry has substantially abandoned its schemes for expansion. I think that the Government ought to say something to the industry about it. It has been asked for an expansion of 100 per cent., whereas we know that the outlook of this industry is now deliberately restricting production. I refer to the O.E.E.C. figures. Production of nitrogen has increased in the United Kingdom in the last five years by 11 per cent.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): This Supplementary Estimate is concerned only with the additional amount. The hon. Gentleman is taking it rather wide.

Mr. Willey: I am expressing a doubt as to whether or not we should agree to this additional amount. Obviously, if we increase our capacity, the industry ought to be able to produce more efficiently and more cheaply. Where as our own nitrogen industry has increased capacity by 11 per cent., at the same time the average increase for Europe is 58 per cent. Our increase is the lowest in Europe.
If we turn from nitrogen to super-phosphates, what do we find? It is true that with the subsidy British prices are the lowest in Europe. Those are the prices that the Government publicise. Let us consider the price without the subsidy. Without the subsidy, the price of superphosphates in this country is the highest in Europe, with one or two exceptions, such as Greece and Turkey.
What are Mr. Frankel's conclusions? Mr. Frankel concludes—and this brings us directly to the Vote—that the evidence suggests that these subsidies would have been required under competitive conditions at a much lower level or possibly could have been eliminated altogether. This causes an unfair comparison between the fertiliser industry and the farming industry. I call in aid the concluding words of Mr. Frankel's study. He said:

The advice of the Government to farmers is to reduce costs, prices and subsidies. Such an advice to the fertiliser manufacturers seems equally desirable in view of the policy of disinflation and expansion of agriculture. In contrast to the farmers, however, fertiliser manufacturers have reduced their costs of production compared with the pre-war period, but have not yet reduced their prices accordingly. Farmers, who still work largely in conditions competitive with other farmers, including those from overseas, have to pass on to the consumer any savings in costs resulting from encreased efficiency, while the fertiliser manufacturers can refrain from doing so. Thus, the restoration of effective competitive conditions in the fertiliser trade—by legislative action, reduction of import duties, or encouragement to new producers—would help to achieve, and not to impede, the objective of lower prices and subsidies.
Whilst we are in the perhaps unfortunate position that we cannot do anything about this particular Vote, I hope the Government can, at any rate, assure us that they do not propose to wait for the Monopolies Commission, but will say that, in view of the very disturbing authoritative report produced by Mr. Frankel of the Agricultural Economic Research Institution at Oxford, there will be a thorough inquiry into the administration and need for this subsidy.
I do not wish to deal with the other items. I hope that I have given a general illustration of the need for the Committee and the Government to review these production grants in the light of development over the past few years.
As regards the second part of the Vote dealing with the implementation of the price guarantees, I come back to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) with regard to cereals. Quite simply, as my right hon. Friend said, we on this side feel that if this very considerable sum is called for, we should have an explanation about two things: first, an explanation of how the need has come about, and, secondly, an explanation as to why it has not had consequences advantageous to the housewife.
As regards the first, I do not wish to expand the argument; I know that we are discussing Supplementary Estimates. I am not, however, satisfied by a generalisation about a fall in market prices. The right hon. Gentleman is new to his Department, but I invite him to look at what happened in 1953–54, when there was a much sharper fall in world prices. The Ministry did not then come


to the House and say that there had been a sharp fall in world prices and it was necessary to ask for very large sums because miscalculations had been made.
The more important point is the second. If the producer price has fallen because import prices have fallen, why is not bread cheaper? The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)—he is not in the Chamber at the moment—intervened to ask what effect this should have on the price of bread. I could tell the hon. Gentleman at once; it is known exactly. There is what is known as the conversion formula, whereby bread prices are reduced according to wheat prices. A fall of 12s. per ton in the price of wheat ought to result in a reduction of ½d. on the price of a 1¾ pound loaf. I know that the sum is not so simple as that; as the economists say, it depends upon other things being equal. One must look at wheat feed prices, millers' costs, and so on.
The onus is on the Government. I have asked in the House more than once, and I ask it again now—let us have an inquiry. When coming to the Committee and asking for £20½ million, the Government ought, at least, to admit that this is a little rough on the housewife. We have the Ministry Gazette figures for the year this morning, which show that, over the year, there has been a 2 per cent. increase in the price of bread and confectionery. We know that the price of bread has been stable; though there have been a few reductions of ½d. in some places, generally speaking, the price has held stable throughout the country.
Surely, the Minister ought to come to the Committee and say, "This is very disturbing to me; it might help to lose me the next Election. We propose to inquire into it". It is a considerable public subvention which is involved, and, on the face of it, it ought to lead to some reduction in the price of bread and confectionery to the housewife.
Though I do not wish to traverse them now—they are well enough known—I could call in aid the profits of the millers. I put it quite simply to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that he and his hon. Friends talk too much about a free market. Is it a fair market? There are 300,000 farmers engaged in an

industry which is largely in the hands of three concerns, which, in fact, control nearly 80 per cent. of the trade. If there is to be a considerable element of public money going into support prices, these are matters which the Government should look at.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman says that there are 300,000 farmers in the hands of three combines. The farmers themselves can buy back from their own corn merchant, if he is a registered corn merchant; they can buy back their own wheat, if it has been sold to him, at £1 or £2 a ton more than they sold it to him earlier. They do not have to go through the big combines at all. I quite agree that, when I buy feeding stuffs, I find the price too high, and that has driven me to do without bought compounds and make my own.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I do not want to stray further. I was putting the case that we have here something which so far is inexplicable—a fall in world prices and prices to the British farmer and yet the price of bread and confectionery to the housewife goes up by 2 per cent. A further reason why we should inquire into this matter is that there is a suspicion that this might not be a fair market to the producer.
As to fatstock, we have an enormous subsidy of nearly £86 million. Having an inquiring mind, a characteristic which I hope is shared by the Minister, I ask myself what purpose this £86 million is serving. Is it reflected in retail prices? I concede that there has been a fall in the price of bacon. It has fluctuated over the year, but this subsidy has not been reflected in a general fall in retail meat prices. They have been fairly stable. Has it saved the producer from violent price fluctuations? Has it been a worthwhile investment because it has prevented a disturbance of the farming industry by ironing out fluctuations? Not at all. Beef cattle have been subject to big fluctuations in prices, and so have pigs, and the F.M.C. is in very serious difficulties.
If the Minister is asking for £86 million, there is a burden upon him to say why this sum is necessary and how he will help us avoid it in future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley today and my hon. Friend the


Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) in Committee on the Agriculture Act, 1957, pleaded for some marketing scheme for pigs but, as has been revealed in the debate today, we have had nothing at all from the Government.
As for eggs, whoever would have thought four years ago that it would have been possible, never mind conceivable, to have had an egg subsidy of nearly £50 million? Viscount Tenby made a very effective party political broadcast on the B.B.C. and said that he had abolished the egg subsidy. But here is this astronomical figure which could not have been believed three or four years ago. I say, by way of aside, that it is one of those ironic twists of British politics that the Minister responsible for the loss of £50 million is now at the Treasury because his predecessor apparently wanted to save £50 million.
I beg the Committee to look at this matter in the proper light. This sum is for the present financial year. I remind the Committee that it is not in respect of the last financial year when the Ministry was in hopeless difficulties. Let us apply the test. Has this enormous sum of £50 million resulted in a fall in retail prices? Not at all. Retail prices of eggs are going up. Therefore, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot smile and say that the purpose of the subsidy was to achieve a fall in retail prices.
The price now is 4s. 6d. a dozen, compared with 3s. 6d. to 3s. 9d. in January, 1957. If it is the purpose of the subsidy to reduce retail prices, I want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say so. We can then see what the Egg Marketing Board does. It is an open secret, and not a matter to quarrel about, that the Egg Marketing Board is trying to lift retail prices. It is trying to keep eggs moving at a high retail price. Therefore, it cannot be said that as a matter of policy and purpose we are spending £50 million of the taxpayers' money to secure cheaper eggs.

Sir J. Duncan: It looks like being successful. My right hon. Friend said that for three months of the financial year before the Egg Marketing Board came into being the total subsidy bill was £15 million. In that case, if the Board had not been operating, the total bill for the year would have been £60 million.

Now the amount is reduced to £48 million in these Estimates and, therefore, it looks as if the Board is doing something towards reducing the subsidy bill.

Mr. Willey: With his usual prescience the hon. Gentleman has anticipated my conclusion about eggs. I certainly said that things would have been far worse; the hon. Gentleman has revealed how things would have been worse, but my point is that it is not a fact that this money was put into the egg industry to induce a lower retail price of eggs. No one blames the Egg Marketing Board for endeavouring to find a realistic price which will also hold the market. If we look at the trend of egg prices, that is what has been happening over the past year.
That will not provide a justification for the expenditure of this sum of money. Was this to increase production? Did the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor spend £50 million of the taxpayers' money to increase egg production? Of course not, because we were exporting subsidised eggs to Denmark. We got into trouble about it. No one would suggest, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer used this money to increase production. He was anxious that production should reach a rather lower level.
Now I come to the point made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) in anticipation. This was solely the price of an enormous Government blunder. In fact what has happened about eggs is what we raised year in and year out in the House of Commons. What has happened has been that we have got an improved system of marketing, and that has improved the outlook for eggs. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to correct me if I am wrong, but I say that we shall have a much better figure for eggs in next year's Estimates.
All that has been done with the £50 million is to alleviate the harm that would have been caused to the producer by Government folly and blunder. I do not express this view only because I have raised this matter in the House. We know that the Public Accounts Committee, year in and year out, has stigmatised the Government for the administration of their schemes. I say that this proves the case. Here we have an example of the prospect of improved marketing and less burden


upon the Exchequer. But the Government are indicted. This has happened over each commodity. It happens over pigs, it happens over everything. The Government create an enormous blunder and then, to alleviate the harm to the industry, we get an enormous subvention from the Exchequer.
About milk, I got into great trouble when we were discussing the Supplementary Estimates a couple of years ago because I said it was the policy of the Government to reduce the consumption of full-price milk. That is what they have done. During the past twelve months there has been a fall in the consumption of full-price milk, corresponding exactly with the fall in 1953. That is a consequence of the same price policy of the Government.
That is bad enough in itself, because we are dealing here with the expenditure of £290 million of the taxpayers' money. I say it is bad. In this case it is no good asking if it is right or wrong for a subsidy to be given here or not. We are concerned with the global figure of £290 million, and I say it would have been of far more benefit to use some of that money to hold the price of milk for the housewife and the mother.
By following an anti-social policy for doctrinaire Tory reasons, the Government have greatly prejudiced the industry. Now the right hon. Gentleman makes an extraordinary statement, going out of his way to call our attention to the fact that there still remains a subsidy on milk of £13 million.
We have had a fall in the consumption of liquid milk due to a price policy followed by the Government, while at the same time the Minister has said that we are providing a subsidy of £13 million for manufactured milk. He did not say that we are one of the largest exporters in the world of canned and dried milk. Here is another case of a subsidised export.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) talked about butter, and suggested anti-dumping legislation being used against imported butter, but we have become well versed in the arts of export subsidies for food commodities and we are exporting milk which has the advantage of two subsidies, because there is a two-price structure for milk.
I conclude by appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to bring a fresh mind to this subject. We are considering an Estimate calling for the taxpayer to pay another £50 million. The price support of British agriculture is now about £290 million and yet we have had a thoroughly bad deal for the consumer and a thoroughly bad deal for the producer. A glance at the retail price index will show the consumer that the cost of food has risen over the past year by 3½ per cent.
I sympathise with the producer who has been outrageously treated by the way this Supplementary Estimate has been produced well in advance of the others in an attempt to affect the Price Review. We have heard about £50 million of subsidies for eggs, but we know that egg producers are having a lean time. We have been told that £290 million goes to the farmers, but although farmers are increasing productivity, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out, their incomes are falling and the expenditure of this public money has not brought a sense of stability and security to the industry which it enjoyed under the Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said that his policy was a policy of deficiency payments. That is not a policy; it is a calculation. His right hon. Friend the Minister said that his policy was a liberal import policy. It cannot be anything of the sort. This is the dilemma which caused the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; hon. Members opposite have to renounce their Toryism.
What we are trying to do for agriculture is to satisfy ourselves that when the farmer is on the market he is on a fair market. We have to realise that marketing conditions are more important than subsidy—as the illustration of egg marketing has shown. Finally, we have to recognise that the essential problem is to ensure that British agriculture gets a larger share of the market than it would obtain on the free market.
The contradiction here—and this is at the back of the mind of every hon. Member opposite—is to go on talking about the free market and then, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, to wake up one morning and recognise oneself as a


Tory and get into real difficulties. Hon. Members opposite cannot forget that they are Tories and they continue to talk about a free market. What we are trying to do is not to bring about a free market, but to ensure that British farmers get an assured market for their produce at the least possible public expense and with the greatest amount of security. That is the problem to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct his mind on taking his new office.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Godber: We have had a fairly wide debate on very important matters, and I will try briefly to deal with some of the topics raised. With the exception we always expect in these agriculture debates, that of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), we have had general support for the granting of these additional subsidies to fulfil our obligation to the farming community.
Anxiety has been expressed on both sides of the Committee over the level of these additional amounts, and, indeed, of the total cost of the support to British agriculture. I should like to point out at the start that out of the total of £54 million in these Votes, £14 million relates to the increases granted at the last February Price Review, and it is really the implementation of this that has caused a number of these items.
I think we should try to keep this in balance. We should remember in relation to our thoughts about the total costs of support that many hon. Members who have spoken have urged that there should be restrictions of one sort or another to iron out and control the market and raise prices in one form or another. From both sides of the Committee we have heard this today, but I think there is one fundamental thing that we have to remember in all this. It is that we as a great trading nation, relying very largely on our export trade, must try to get our costs of food to the consumer as low as we can, and down to world prices, if our industries are to compete in the export markets of the world. That is a basic principle which we must not forget, and I thought that in one or two of the speeches today some hon. Members have overlooked it.

Mr. Turton: Would my hon. Friend say if he would carry that principle so

far as to harm the interests of Commonwealth producers?

Mr. Godber: Certainly not; nor would I suggest that in fact our policies are really doing that. I know the particular Commonwealth country which my right hon. Friend is thinking of, but I think it is only fair to say that we have taken and are taking a larger total quantity of agricultural products from them than ever before. We are taking very large quantities, and I do not think it is fair to say that by our policies we are deliberately depressing these particular Commonwealth producers.

Mr. Hayman: Could the hon. Gentleman say to which Commonwealth country he is now referring?

Mr. Godber: The one to which I was referring at that moment was New Zealand, which has had its difficulties in relation to milk products in particular. However, I must not spend too long on this very wide general point; I am trying to put the matter in perspective in relation to the remarks that have been made. If I were to try to follow a number of the channels mapped out in front of me, I should soon get into trouble with the Chair, so I will try to avoid going too far out of order after one or two hon. Members who have spoken.
I have also to be rather careful in replying to this debate in regard to the fact that we have the Price Review coming on, and I must not say anything that will in any way impinge upon it. I can take up one point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) when speaking about this particular Supplementary Estimate being brought forward at this time.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we have rushed it forward so as to embarrass—as I rather understood him—the Price Review negotiations. I emphatically deny that. There was no question of that whatever, as all the Supplementary Estimates of all sorts, I imagine, will be out well before the time for the Price Review could be over, anyway. Surely it is better—if that point was being considered, and it was not—that we should bring this on now and the others later, when this might have been forgotten? I think we have been kind rather than otherwise, if this point had been raised, but, of course, it did not enter into our calculations at all.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raised a number of points, some of which were picked up by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. First, he talked about the comparative price of fertilisers, and suggested that the manufacturers were getting the full benefit of the subsidies. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North developed that theme at greater length, and had some rather strong criticisms to make about the firms engaged in the industry. It is not part of my function to protect these firms from criticism, but I would remind the hon. Member that this industry has been put before the Monopolies Commission. There is another important thing to remember. The hon. Member referred to two firms in particular, but a third firm is coming into the nitrogenous fertilisers market. It is coming in in a big way, and I am hoping that it will be in soon. That should have a healthy effect upon the price of these fertilisers.
The net cost of fertilisers to the farmer today is less than it was in 1951. The manufacturers have had an increase in costs since then, so it is clear that a very considerable benefit accrues to the farmers when we remember that over that period of seven years the price is now cheaper than it was at the beginning. I do not think it is fair to castigate these people quite so much as the hon. Member chooses to do.

Mr. Willey: This is an important matter. All I was asking for was an inquiry. I would emphasise that I was putting not so much my own views as those which have been put before O.E.E.C. and which have been expressed by Mr. Frankel as a result of this inquiry and study.

Mr. Godber: I do not want to put words into the hon. Member's mouth, but I understood that he was critical. I know that he was in fact quoting Mr. Frankel. This industry is before the Monopolies Commission and we shall no doubt have its report in due course.
In relation to this Supplementary Estimate it is important to remember that the figure of £1,600,000 is accounted for largely by something which I mentioned a short time ago, namely, the increase granted in last year's February Price Review. The increase in fact amounted

to £3 million, but only half has been paid in the current financial year. The rest will accrue to next year's vote.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley spoke strongly about the effect upon retail prices of the fall in world prices of the commodities for which we are having to account by way of these large sums, especially in relation to cereals and, to a lesser extent, fatstock and eggs. The right hon. Member said that the fall in world prices had not been reflected in retail prices. He preferred to base his argument upon wheat. I can well understand his wishing to do so because, on the face of it, it certainly appears that there is a very large figure which is unaccounted for.
The fair way to view the matter, however, is to take the total cereal figure, because much home-produced wheat goes into feeding stuffs. If we do that we see that the figure amounts to an additional £20 million, or, if we include Scotland, about £24 million. A very considerable amount is accounted for by a saving on what would have been the guaranteed payments on fatstock—pigs and poultry in particular. The operation of the feed formula saved £4 million on eggs and £13 million on pigs—a total of over £17 million out of an increase of £24 million in the cereal figure for the United Kingdom. That materially reduces the additional cereal figure. While it is true that the price of bread is the same as it was twelve months ago—it did go up, but it came down again—

Mr. Dye: It was stated earlier by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends that, of the feeding stuffs used, 75 per cent. was imported and only 25 per cent. was home produced. How can the hon. Gentleman charge this amount in relation to the feeding stuffs formula against what is the home-produced element?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member is trying to lead me along one of the channels to which I referred earlier. May I correct him by saying that it was one of his hon. Friends who said that, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). I will come to that, but at the moment I am dealing with a particular argument which I should like to develop in my own way.
There is left this element of £7 million. I say frankly that the price of bread is


the same. We should be glad were it to go down. But I think it fair to say in this connection that, of course, the bakers and millers, like other people, have had additional costs to bear; particularly when we imposed upon them the provisions of the Night Baking Act on 1st January. I remember the Committee stage of that Act, which was warmly supported by hon. Members opposite. But I am sure hon. Members would agree that it must have imposed some extra costs on the industry because of the additional safeguards provided for workers, and it is fair to take that into account. It is also right to bear in mind that the question of these prices has been brought to the attention of the Restrictive Practices Court.
The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have referred to the operation of the Egg Marketing Board. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was working well, and what was the throughput compared with the figure before the board came into operation. It is difficult to give reliable figures, because it has not been going on for long, but so far as I can see there is an increase through the packing stations of roughly 5 per cent. I am glad that tributes have been paid to the board. It has been and, I hope, it will be in a position to be of considerable help to the industry.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, in his references to eggs, spoke of a Government blunder. I think that a little harsh. The problem of overproduction has been caused because of the efficiency of our hens rather than the inefficiency of the Government. Poultry production has improved sharply as the result of new techniques, including the use of deep-litter houses. Because of that, poultry production has become a more attractive proposition; so much so that last summer the present Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a special warning about egg production because it would have been wrong to stimulate production now that we are producing all we can consume in this country.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley referred to fatstock and the problems of pig and bacon production. He and a number of other hon. Members have mentioned this matter, and there have been charges that serious difficulties exist in the bacon market. No doubt there are difficulties, but they are not only due

to imports, and it would be quite wrong to pretend that they are. Pig production has gone up in this country very sharply in the last 12 or 15 months. That was not on the advice of the Government. In the White Paper at the time of the last Review we said that no more pigmeat was desirable at this stage. That has helped to cause embarrassment in the pig market.

Mr. Hayman: Cornwall branch of the National Farmers' Union says that the fact that 17 grades of pig are going into the bacon factory is one of the contributing factors to the difficulties of the industry.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is referring of course to the F.M.C. grades. That comes within the orbit of that body rather than that of the Government.
It is important that there should be high standards of grading. We have seen a very big improvement in that respect, and I am encouraged by the big improvement in quality. My right hon. Friend is very well aware of the pig position. He is meeting some of those who are concerned with it over the next week to look into the problem. We set up the Pig Industry Development Authority because we wanted a body which could go into all the problems of the pig industry. It could do a great deal of good. We have a long way to go yet; we are not up to the standard of efficiency which the Danes have achieved. It is in trying to achieve that standard that we have the best way out of our problems.
Several hon. Members have referred to the need for a marketing board trading in all pigs. The Bosanquet Committee came down very firmly against it. We went into all the pros and cons at great length. I interrupted an hon. Member opposite on this point. There is great confusion about it and great difficulty where there is bacon on the one hand and pork on the other. They are entirely different commodities, vet it is possible to switch rapidly from one to the other when prices become sufficiently attractive It is difficult to find a way of keeping the balance. The Government took the Committee's advice on the matter, and unless very good evidence can be provided to the contrary we shall stand by that decision.

Mr. Willey: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary try to face the problem that is before us? He says that production has been at a level which was embarrassing and—mournfully "We told the producers that this would happen, and it has happened". That is the problem which the hon. Gentleman must face. It is no good quoting from committee reports that were issued a year or two ago. Does he say that this problem has nothing to do with marketing, with the price of foodstuffs or with imports? I should have thought that it had something to do with all three of them.

Mr. Godber: It has certainly something to do with all of them. I said I had to be careful that I did not impinge upon certain problems; the hon. Gentleman must not tempt me too far. Imports are running at a high level at the present time, although there is a tariff on imports The Danish producers are not importing, so far as I am aware, below their cost of production although I have no evidence of that point. They may at certain times take prices lower than the average but I believe they are not subsidised in any way.

Mr. Turton: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary find out whether the facts I have given to the Committee are accurate or not? I made a statement and I am responsible for it. Will not the hon. Gentleman check it?

Mr. Godber: I did have this point put to me some little time ago and I checked it then. The information I got bore out exactly what I am telling the Committee now. If my right hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary he should place it in my hands so that I may examine it. I did go into this point and I was assured that that was the case.
I should like to come to the points raised by other hon. Members. I apologise for speaking at such length. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) stressed the point that agriculture must be competitive. I am sure he is right. He spoke particularly about the need to make more use of grass so as to avoid importing feeding stuffs. That point cannot be over-emphasised, and I am grateful for his having called our attention to it once more.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman says he is satisfied that agriculture should be competitive; competitive with what?

Mr. Godber: I propose to deal with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton in a moment. If he does not mind waiting, I will have a word or two to say on his remarks in a moment.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, competitive with what?

Mr. Godber: Agriculture should be competitive in relation to agricultural production in other countries. That is what I was referring to and I think that is a perfectly fair point to make.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the farmers that at the next Price Review?

Mr. Godber: I will not be drawn on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) dealt in particular with milk and spoke about the differential under B.4. That of course, is due to the need for the manufacturing price. The manufacturing price has been affected very materially by the fall in the price of cheese. That has caused a lower price for manufacturing milk and, under arrangements with the Milk Marketing Board, we have had to bear our share of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) reminded us very rightly once more of the Heneage Report. I very much sympathise with his views on this matter. The need to make some progress with drainage is unquestionable. We are still in consultation and discussions are taking place on this very difficult and thorny problem, but I have certainly not given up hope. I believe we shall get a measure of agreement in time and be able to bring something before the House. No one will be more pleased than I if we can satisfy my hon. Friend and his most distinguished constituent.
My hon. Friend also spoke of overlapping in regard to hill farming and livestock improvement grants with marginal production grants. I will look into that question. My hon. Friend farms in the Highlands, I wondered whether he might be taking advantage of that himself. I shall be only too glad to look


into it and see that he does not take any such advantage. I am most grateful to him for calling our attention to it.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton made one of his typical speeches in our agricultural debates. We always enjoy but seldom agree with them. He started by talking about this Government as being like a tired jockey pulling up his horse. I rather gathered that he thought we should be charging on at full speed regardless of the state of the horse. Sometimes it is better to pull up before the horse falls dead beneath one. I thought perhaps hon. Members opposite would follow that metaphor in relation to our economic debate last week when I thought the Leader of the Opposition put rather the same view in his idea of having expansion at a time when that was not so appropriate.

Mr. Paget: In my equestrian experience I have found that when a horse has dropped dead it is not usually necessary to pull it up.

Mr. Godber: That is a very fair point, but it is quite clear that the hon. and learned Member has ridden too long and too unwisely or he would not have had that experience. I think perhaps I had better not follow that metaphor any further.

Mr. Paget: Or it will drop dead.

Mr. Godber: I must protest when the hon. and learned Member speaks once more of agriculture as a declining industry. That is such arrant nonsense and he knows it is arrant nonsense, but he keeps on saying it. He knows that the figures in the White Paper show that production is reaching higher and higher levels each year. Agriculture is certainly not a declining industry. His point is that it is declining as a percentage of the national income.
He gave some interesting figures. I thought he was quoting because I knew that I had heard some of those figures before. Afterwards I recalled where I had heard them. I had heard them from the mouth of the hon. and learned Member himself. I appreciate his wisdom in quoting himself, and I well recall the occasion when he used the figures, in Committee on the Agriculture Bill last year. At that time I considered that they had little bearing on our problems in

agriculture. As a theoretical exercise they were interesting but as a practical contribution to our debates I did not think they added up to anything.
The hon. and learned Member said that whatever happened in other sections of industry agriculture must retain its percentage of the national output. That means that whatever the level of development the country has at the time we start we must maintain the position of agriculture as a sacred part of that development, whatever happens in other industries. One could not do that in respect of any industry.

Mr. Paget: That is exactly what I am not saying. I said that when we have a currency which is continually changing in value, the only fair test is what proportion of the national product or national income goes to agriculture. It is perfectly true that if agricultural efficiency increased less or did not increase at all and industrial efficiency did increase, then it would be fair for agriculture to have a smaller slice of the cake; but where we find that agricultural efficiency has increased at twice the rate of the increase in industrial efficiency during a period in which agriculture has lost more than a quarter of its slice of the national income, we have a situation in which agriculture is entitled to complain.

Mr. Godber: I do not accept that agricultural income has been reduced by a quarter. I know that certain figures have been circulated suggesting that, but I should not accept them in this context.
The hon. and learned Member's argument is that we should retain the same percentage for agriculture regardless of what happens in other industries. I say to him that that does not add up to a sensible policy at present. It could well mean that if other industry expanded we should have to expand further our output of milk. If we were to stimulate a large increase in the output of milk it would be nonsense. We have to relate these matters to our needs at the present time.
I should like to follow this much further but it would perhaps not be fair to other hon. Members to do so. I would only comment to the hon. and learned Member that I was interested that not only did he stigmatise this Government as a tired Government but he referred to the


N.F.U. as supine. I have heard many adjectives used in relation to the N.F.U. and Sir James Turner but I do not think anybody has ever called them supine. I am sure this description will be interesting to Sir James.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a very important contribution to the debate. I understand his feelings on these matters very well and I have tried to deal with broad aspects of the points which he raised in my opening remarks. We must keep in mind that if we are to succeed in our support of British agriculture, not only must we safeguard British agriculture but we must see that our prices of food in this country are at world levels in order that we may compete in the export markets.
We have to watch whether there is any unfair competition through heavily subsidised imports, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that we shall keep a close watch on these points, but I would not wish to take that further at this stage. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) asked for more indications of broad policy. He knows, I am sure, that in the Annual Price Review we try to give as clear an indication as we can on this point. In paragraph 12 of last year's White Paper we set out what we thought were broad policy objectives, and we shall seek to do the same again this year after the Price Review. I think that that is the best, and the only helpful way in which we can do it—

Mr. Gooch: Does what was in the White Paper still stand?

Mr. Godber: We naturally stand by what we said in the White Paper last year, but we hope that another White Paper will be coming out later to bring things up to date. However, I have no reason to believe that there will be any major change in our policy. We said then that we aimed at
…more good quality beef, and lamb…
and less pig meat, eggs and milk, and I see no reason to anticipate a great change from that.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), in a helpful speech, made mention of the use of surplus milk for ice

cream. He suggested that we should use more genuine milk in the making of ice cream and that is a point, I know, that the Milk Marketing Board has very much in mind and is trying to do something about. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) referred to the low usage of fertiliser. I have tried to deal with this point already. We certainly want to encourage still further use. We have had a very considerable increase in the consumption of fertiliser, and we shall not be satisfied until it is higher still.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn) referred to various commodities and, in particular, to cheese and butter. He spoke of a drop in the retail price of cheese amounting, so I understood him to say, to about £30 million a year. That is just one instance of where food prices have dropped, and it is only fair to say—and this answers points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and other hon. Members that the price in the shops of a number of food commodities has fallen substantially this year. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North instanced some that had not, but there are those that have fallen considerably. Bacon is an obvious example; cheese another; butter, slightly tea, a little—

Mr. Wiley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we are not dealing with tea in this Supplementary Estimate. I was careful to confine myself to those foodstuffs that come under the Estimate, but I did give as the general picture, as shown in the Retail Price Index, that food prices have gone up by 3½ per cent.

Mr. Godber: No, they have not gone up by 3½ per cent. during the year. The figure is about two points up. In actual fact, the food section of the Retail Price Index shows food commodities to be a little lower at this moment than they were earlier in the year. I think the figure is about 106, although I am speaking from memory—

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman will again forgive me, but this is just a point of accuracy. I was comparing December with December, as the Ministry of Labour does.

Mr. Godber: I was thinking of January, but, in any case, the increase is very slight indeed. It is, as I say, about 2 per cent.


or a little more—on the food figures; not on the whole range of the Retail Price Index.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), in his inimitable way, said that we must not let farming down and, of course, we are not proposing to let farming down in any way at all, and that is the purpose of the 1957 Act.
I have tried, Sir Gordon, as far as I can, to deal with all the points that have been raised. I apologise for having taken so long in doing so, but, before I conclude, I should like to say, with regret, that during the whole of our discussion of this important subject we do not seem to have had the presence of any members of the Liberal Party, which is claiming an interest in the agricultural constituencies. I am sorry that they have not been here.
I would conclude by referring to the 1957 Act, about which there is some genuine misunderstanding, I hope, on the other side of the Committee. That is certainly what it seems like to me. Hon. Members opposite say that we have legislated to make a price cut of 2½ per cent. We have done nothing of the sort. Prior to the passing of the Act, there was no restriction on the amount by which any Government could cut prices; and it must be remembered that we put in that restriction at a time when there are large surpluses in the world—very different from the 1947 Act, when there were desperate shortages and it did not cost hon. Members opposite a penny piece to provide as they did in the 1947 Act. That is the real difference, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North knows it as well as I do. There are now far greater guarantees than ever before.

Mr. Gooch: A great deal has been said about the fact that the 1957 Act established the guarantees for the first time. That is nonsense. The 1947 Act did that, and the Labour Government were as good as their word. There was no reduction in guarantees. But let us

wait until the February Price Review. I am willing to bet that there will then he a 2½ per cent. reduction.

Mr. Godber: I will certainly not be tempted into forecasting the outcome of the February Price Review. Under the conditions of the 1947 Act, it was of benefit to the Government rather than otherwise. They were getting their food at below world prices at that time, and hon. Members opposite know that perfectly well We are honouring the blank cheque that they gave them by giving the other side of the coin. We are giving the guarantees now while world prices are falling.

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Gentleman may be out of order, but would he assure the House that when we have a full agricultural debate he will apply his mind to expenditure on grants for water to farms? The issue of sheep farming would also have been out of order, but those two matters are vital to British farming, whoever is in power.

Mr. D. Marshall: In view of the answers the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), would he like to have a signed article which states that at the moment the Danes are losing 30s. a pig in exporting bacon to this country?

Mr. Godber: I shall naturally be very interested to see anything that my hon. Friend sends to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £44,983,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other subsidies and services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

CLASS VIII. VOTE 3

Agricultural and Food Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,135,980, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

9.33 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): We now come to Vote III, which covers a very wide range of agricultural and food services. The total additional supplementary on this item is £3·8 million, which is partly offset by savings on other subheads of nearly £700,000. I will not detain the House too long on this item, because we have had a very long, but, I think, useful debate.
However, there are one or two important items I wish to mention. The first is the additional £1·8 million to implement our guaranteed prices for Australian meat. This expenditure arises under the 15-year Australian meat agreement which was signed in 1951. I am sure that, whatever the cost this year may be, hon. Members opposite will not wish to criticise. They, after all, conceived and gave birth to the agreement even though we have had the cost of bringing it up. Things have changed a great deal since 1951, when meat was very scarce. Last year the fall in the price of frozen beef was more than we expected, and our payments to the Australians have been correspondingly higher.
The other big item is £1·3 million for compensation and other expenses under the Diseases of Animals Act. Foot-and-mouth disease is likely to cost an extra

£825,000, and fowl pest an extra £715,000.
May I say a word about foot-and-mouth disease. Last year was certainly a bad year and we are at present still going through a bad phase, especially in the South of England, Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire and West Sussex are all involved. Although it is impossible to prove the origin of the outbreaks, I do not think that there is very much doubt that the disease is being spread from the Continent. Birds and wind are, unfortunately, uncontrollable factors. All we can do is to maintain an attitude even more vigilant than usual in detecting the disease and, as soon as it appears, containing it and suppressing it with the least possible delay.
I feel that farmers have been extremely good in the rapidity with which they have reported outbreaks, a thing which, of course, is of the utmost help to the rest of the farming community. There has been a great deal of anxiety in the farming world about outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and I am certainly not complacent about it. We are most anxious to do all we can to keep it down, whether it be introduced from the Continent or from South America. There is no easy solution. I believe, however, that all responsible people are convinced, that our present policy of compulsory slaughter is the right one in the interests of the farming industry.

Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, that we all know the danger of foot-and-mouth disease, is it not very foolish to start importing Charollais bulls from France, a country which has a very bad record of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Hare: No decision has been given on that; but I will remember what my hon. and gallant Friend has to say about that. Comparing what happens here with what happens to our neighbours in France, of course, the difference in number of outbreaks is quite dramatic. In 1957, we had 184 outbreaks, compared with 99,000 outbreaks in France. We can, I think, feel that we are on the right lines, anyhow, in coping with this type of disease.
Fowl pest continues to cause trouble in some areas. A combination of slaughter


and movement restrictions in infected areas has, in most parts of the country, brought the disease under reasonably satisfactory control. There is no evidence of further introduction from abroad. The number of outbreaks has shown a significant fall since 1955, with the sole exception of Lancashire. We were hoping that Lancashire would respond to the same control measures which have proved effective in other parts of the country, but I am sorry to say that our hopes have not so far been realised. The problem there, I suppose, lies in the tremendously heavy concentration of poultry within a comparatively small area. As a result, the risks of local spread are far greater than they are elsewhere. The present arrangements are being reviewed from time to time, and we hope that they will lead to the eradication of the trouble. It is, at any rate, a comfort that, apart from Lancashire, a general improvement has been shown.
The other items in the Vote are rather smaller, but I should like to refer to the poultry progeny testing stations, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). I believe that they will be of great value to the poultry industry, and just add the comment that they have now completed their first season's work. There may well be other points which hon. Members wish to raise, but I shall say no more at the moment.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Willey: May I first of all, in an effort to ensure that the Committee will pay some attention to any further facts I advance, call attention to the fact that I have been able to obtain the Ministry of Labour Gazette, which confirms what I said earlier with regard to the Retail Price Index. The food index in December was—I take the words from the Gazette—
about 3½ per cent. higher than in December, 1956".
I thought, as I had not an opportunity to obtain the document before we had concluded our last debate, I should make the matter quite clear in order to ensure that attention would be paid to anything I may have to say in the debate on the present Vote.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am very sorry indeed if I

threw doubt on his normal veracity, which, of course, we all know and respect, but I was quoting, and I apologise for it, from January to December of the same year, and I said "two points". I used the word "January", but I am afraid that we misunderstood one another.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I thought it was worth while putting the matter right, because people who follow these debates might otherwise be confused.
I would no attribute any responsibility to the Minister for the unfortunate incidence of fowl pest and foot-and-mouth disease. We on this side of the Committee will support him in all measures he can take to deal with it. We were sorry to hear what he said about Lancashire. We greatly appreciate the work done at Pirbright, which is recognised not only throughout Britain but abroad. As we are not in the position of such a country as Ireland, which has eradicated foot-and-mouth disease, but are specially vulnerable because of meat imports, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure the Committee that Her Majesty's Government will take every possible step to encourage action which is being taken internationally by such bodies as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the European Commission and the International Office for Epizootics, and will also consider the international convention which I believe was drafted by the French Government. This, of all countries, should continue to take the initiative in encouraging international co-operation.
I will say only a few words about meat inspection, to which I anticipate we shall be returning in Standing Committee on the Slaughterhouse Bill. We very much welcome the provision which has been made to cover partially the cost of inspection of meat which is exported outside the local auhority area. We might have liked this sum to be rather bigger, but we shall encourage the Government in all such actions as they take to improve the inspection of meat. I only remind the right hon. Genleman of this matter because we shall have the opportunity of debating it more fully in Standing Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary permitting.
The really disturbing thing about meat inspection is the fact that the Interdepartmental Committee on Slaughterhouses, which reported in 1951, said that, in the conditions obtaining in a limited number of slaughterhouses, even the best slaughterhouses which were then under the control of the Minister were often
too small, badly constructed and inadequately equipped. In such circumstances"—
and I would remind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary always to keep this before him—the Committee said that
it was impossible to secure the observance of reasonable standards of hygiene.
But for the purpose of the present Supplementary Estimates, I content myself with saying that we welcome this provision and hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take such other steps as are possible to the Government to encourage local authorities to provide for the inspection of all home-produced meat.
We have discussed cold stores on previous Supplementary Estimates. We on this side of the Committee very much object to this public property being sacrificed in the interests of private enterprise. With melancholy we look forward to each Supplementary Estimate, and we see that those managing the industry to prevent it from being competitive with private enterprise also manage to have some pretext for applying for public funds to enable them so to do. We regard the sterilisation of these cold stores as a sell-out to the trade, a sacrifice of Government property, and unfortunately, as the Supplementary Estimates each year show, a burden to the taxpayer.
I hope the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary will give some explanation of why the management company is having to ask for this amount of public money. One is never quite sure what the Government are up to, and so I shall ask him another question. Some of these stores have been converted for use as dry stores and have been used largely for the storage of strategic stocks. It is difficult to find any information about such stocks because the Government, very properly, are not very oncoming in revealing particulars of strategic stocks. Is it possible that this request for public money is because less use has been made of these stores and that we have less strategic

stocks than we had at the beginning of the financial year? If it were true, that would be very disturbing. We can understand the purposes of the 7 per cent. restriction on capital investment, but I hope we are not running down our strategic stocks. Therefore, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman assuring us that this is not the case, and that the stores are being used to their utmost to provide storage for such stocks.
The fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) is here encourages me to call the attention of the Committee to the provision regarding the guaranteed price for Australian meat. Here again we have the classic example of a deficiency payment at work. This is a side payment. In effect, the Government tore up the fifteen-year agreement we had with the Australians and substituted for it the selling of meat on the free market, with a side payment if it did not meet the agreed figure. But what do we find? In 1955–56 the amount was £122,000. Remember this is taxpayers' money to support the price. In 1956–57 it was £1,800,000, but during that year we had a Supplementary Estimate bringing it up to £2,700,000. That is an increase of £900,000 in the Supplementary Estimate. What do we find this year? We start not with £2,700,000 but £3,000,000. The Government are now asking for £4,800,000, so this is arithmetical progression, and the usual disturbing illustration of the method of a deficiency payment at work.
Indeed, it is rather worse than this, and I want to call the attention of the Committee to another factor. It is worse for this interesting reason, that we only get this provision for Australian meat. We ended the agreement with the New Zealanders without any support being made. It is true that over the past year the supplies of Australian meat have increased, but it is equally true that the supplies of New Zealand meat have fallen. The net result is that we are getting about the same supplies from Australasia, but the same supplies—the price of which has been stable on Smithfield—are now costing the taxpayer, because this money comes out of public funds, £4,800,000.

Mr. Hill: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me for my edification how far the


increasing deficiency payment stems from the fact that the home consumer is preferring home-killed beef, and that therefore the market price of imported beef is a good deal less than it was at the time when his Government completed the original block purchase arrangement with Australia?

Mr. Willey: As far as I know it is not due to that fact. I have already said it appears to me that the Australian price has been stable on Smithfield Market. There have been increased supplies of Australian meat, but the British housewife continues to get the same overall amount of Australasian meat.
This is an illustration of how the deficiency payment works. There is a lack of interest in the realisation price in the market, because it is known that it will be supported by a subvention from the Treasury. The price, of course, is also related to the Argentinian price. One has to compare Argentinian chilled against Australian frozen. My attention has been called to the position obtaining earlier and the moral to be drawn from that is that if we are to provide for a guaranteed market, the simplest thing to do is to have a simple, straightforward bulk purchasing contract.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have an open mind about this, because I know that he has had a particular interest in the Commonwealth. Bulk purchase is largely a Commonwealth matter. It is entirely a Commonwealth and Danish matter. I ask him not to be doctrinaire about it. We have torn up our bulk purchasing contract and this year that is costing the taxpayer £4,800,000. We cannot say that this is free trade as against a managed market, because we have this subvention from the Exchequer.
Let us look at it in the light of our experience. Surely it would be better for the Australians, and certainly better for the New Zealanders, who are going to other markets. The conclusion to be drawn from this experience—and I put it no higher than this, because the right hon. Gentleman is new in his office—is that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the matter and have talks with the Australians, with the New Zealanders and with his right hon. Friend who is now at the Treasury and who may now take a different view. Let us pay

attention to our experience to see how it comes about that this provision has got larger and larger in each subsequent Estimate and to see whether we should not return to the straightforward long-term contract between ourselves and a fellow member of the Commonwealth.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: I want to refer only very briefly to the extra money required to pay compensation to the owners of animals which have to be slaughtered in outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. I say at once that I accept absolutely the general policy which necessitates these payments. I am sure that we are right to accept sacrifices in order to keep the country free from foot-and-mouth disease. It is clear that we must continue the slaughtering policy until such time as an effective and economic vaccine can be produced.
Furthermore, I have nothing but praise for the way in which Ministry officials handled the very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Penrith in my constituency and, in particular, the prompt payment of compensation was much to be commended.
All this does not detract in any way from the serious effect of these outbreaks. It is in the number of outbreaks that the cause for worry lies. My right hon. Friend, in some Parliamentary Answers recently, has given us a clear indication of the nature of the problem. In 1956, there were 32 primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, 17 originated from infection from the Argentine, 11 from Europe and 4 from what are described as "obscure sources." In 1957, there were 43 outbreaks, 23 from the Argentine, 17 from Europe and 3 from obscure sources.
Of course, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is difficult to see how one can stop infection being brought by birds from the Continent, but we can clearly take steps about infection from the Argentine. In another Parliamentary Answer my right hon. Friend said that the present arrangements with the Argentine authorities substantially reduced the risk of infection and that he was hopeful of making further progress. This is reasonably satisfactory, but the horrid fact remains that the number of outbreaks originating from this source is still increasing.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will be tough in his discussions with the Argentine authorities about this. After all, we are very large consumers, as far as they are concerned. Surely, it would not be unreasonable to point out to them that the consumer is always right, and that we are simply not prepared to continue for ever importing foot-and-mouth disease along with their meat.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I too wish to address a few words to the Minister on slaughter policy, but in connection with fowl pest, in which I have a very close constituency interest.
There are probably more eggs laid to the square mile in Sowerby in the West Riding of Yorkshire than anywhere else in the country, and there are well over a dozen well-known accredited hatcheries. Therefore, when it does break out, fowl pest is very serious in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Lancashire as still being a source of some anxiety and disappointment. Happily, Sowerby is not in Lancashire, but very near to it, and I should add that it is free of the disease at the moment.
What I wish to ask the Minister is this. Slaughter is a grievously wasteful thing and can be positively heart-breaking to producers, more especially, perhaps, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, where much more is at stake and the breeding policy of a lifetime may be destroyed under the producer's very eyes. It is much more grievous there than in connection with poultry. Yet, there is a breeding policy with poultry, and the producer has pride in his stock and in the results of his work.
The restriction of movement is not only highly inconvenient, but can be almost disastrous, when the line is drawn, as in one case within my knowledge, between the hatchery and the rearing farms. I can see that, while veterinary research has not yet found an answer, if one is to be found, then the suppression of outbreaks by this drastic method is perhaps inevitable. Certainly, we do not want either foot-and-mouth disease or fowl pest to spread and become endemic; we want to get rid of them.
Are our veterinary researchers showing any progress? That is the question I wish

to ask. I know that the Minister has been dealing with this problem for a long time, and there is an element of controversy in the whole policy. I have heard much about vaccine treatments and so on, but they have not so far, apparently, given satisfaction to those who are carrying out research work and observing the results of these things in the laboratories. This matter is important to those who have any connection with this industry, and it is also important from the point of view of humanity.
To see animals and birds slaughtered by thousands and buried by bulldozers is bound to be depressing, as well as economically wasteful. We do not advocate a slaughter policy in connection with diseases of human beings. We pursue our researches with every endeavour and regardless of the cost to find the answer to the things which plague us.
May I therefore ask the Minister whether he has any encouraging news to give of researches into fowl pest, whether by the breeding of stock which may be immune from the disease, by vaccines or other preventives or any other method? I shall be glad of any news which he may have to give.

10.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but I want my right hon. Friend to consider the question of foot-and-mouth disease of which, in Northern Ireland, there has been only one case in the last twenty-five years. It occurred in 1941. I am told that it was attributable to Argentine beef which had been imported into an American camp. Part of that meat had gone away in swill.
We have just the same winds which blow from the East bringing birds across the sea from Scotland to Northern Ireland. The distance between the two countries is very small—in parts it is less than the width of the English Channel—but no disease organisms have been blown over, and we are quite convinced that it is contaminated meat which brings the disease to England. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point very seriously, because we have proved through time and experience that that is the most likely cause of the disease in England today.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I do not wish to detain the Committee for very long, but I want to follow up the question of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease by asking when the Government are to get tough about this matter and say to those who import Argentinian beef, "You must guarantee that this meat is not infected with foot-and-mouth disease," or, if these people will not give a guarantee, make them pay a premium to cover the cost of compensation in outbreaks which are proved to be the result of imported Argentinian beef. Until we do that we shall do nothing to stop outbreaks due to this source. I do not understand why we cannot do it.
It is believed that other outbreaks are due to birds coming from the Continent. We are now having discussions with Western European countries about a Free Trade Area; why do not we have discussions with them with a view to the elimination of the disease in their countries as well as in our own? When will the Government become alerted on this question? They should be taking action, instead of the Minister saying, as he has said this evening, "I am afraid that we cannot do much about it." We must try to do something, and we can do it only with the co-operation of importers of Argentinian meat and representatives of Western European Governments.
I should also like to know why the item relating to Australian meat was included in the Supplementary Estimate relating to home-produced meat. This £4,800,000 is included in the total amount of subsidies to British farmers. Why should not that item be in the Commonwealth Vote? Why should every newspaper and journal describe it as a subsidy to British farmers when it is nothing to do with them, but is concerned with the Australian farmers?
I should like to be told something about the £95,000 Estimate in respect of the inspection of meat in certain areas. Although the Government said that they would do this two years ago they have done nothing at all about it. On page 15 of the Supplementary Estimate it is stated that:
Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to make contributions to local authorities of 50 per cent. of the estimated net cost of inspecting meat

which is slaughtered in their area and is not consumed there.
This is the first time we have heard about a 50 per cent. grant and, so far as I know, the first time that any local authority has known anything about it. I inquired of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about it but he was very cagey and said he did not know what the grant was. That was only two days ago and I raised the matter in relation to what is taking place at St. Faith's and Aylsham rural district. I pointed out that the cost of full inspection would be £10,000 a year and if, as in that case, four-fifths of the meat slaughtered in the area is sent outside and only one-fifth consumed in the area, even on this grant of 50 per cent. to deal with exported meat, it would mean a rate of 2d. or 3d. The people there are still concerned that they should be saddled with the cost of inspecting this large amount of meat which at present is not being examined.
Surely, if the Government decided this matter in March, 1956, it is time they did something about it. A decision taken and announced in the House on 29th March, 1956, is now to be implemented. Why the delay? I presume it is only because of the discussions which have taken place in the Standing Committee on the Slaughterhouse Bill. Surely we must be given a reason for this long delay. Surely this £95,000 is a back payment to 1956. There have been no arrangements with the local authorities either on the 50 per cent. grant or on any other percentage, and that seems to me to require an explanation.

10.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I wish to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) about coaxing our neighbours in Europe towards a policy of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. I raised with his predecessor by Parliamentary Question and by correspondence this matter of imported Argentine beef without bone, or alternatively, boning it as soon as it arrived and destroying the durable parts, the un-consumable remains such as bone and wrappings. The meat itself is subjected to sufficiently high temperatures when it is cooked to kill the virus or prevent further infection.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that research into this most difficult problem is receiving sufficient money and being carried on in sufficient volume, or would he prefer to see more spent, the present establishment extended and more experimentation? I should be grateful for answers to those questions.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: I am glad of the opportunity to say a word about the grant for the reconstruction of sea defences. The additional sum required is £49,000. I should like the Minister to know that many of us who have seen this defence problem appreciate the work done by the river boards which is in addition to work undertaken by various local authorities who receive grants under other legislation. We are continually losing little bits of old England when the sea defences break down.
I have an extensive amount of sea coast in my division and most of it needs protection. I very much appreciate the exceedingly good work done by the river boards in regard to sea defences, but I plead for a little more money to enable them to undertake still further important work. At present, the heavy burden is put on local authorities; it should be shared much more than it is. If river boards were allowed to extend their activities they could undertake much more coast defence work. Much has been done, but much more remains to be done.
Only this week I have had a meeting of the Erpingham Rural District Council in my division. It has sea defences at three places in its area, at Overstrand, Mundesley and Cley, delightful seaside places. The work costs the local ratepayers a rate of 11d. These three schemes alone show that the river board has done useful work. If the Minister can enable the river boards to do more, it will be appreciated not only by those whose land is fast disappearing but by local authorities for whom it becomes a heavy financial burden upon the ratepayers.

10.12 p.m.

Sir Henry Studholme: I intervene on the subject of Argentine meat. I have always understood that foot-and-mouth disease germs remained in the marrow of the bones. When I

was in Argentina I saw cattle suffering from foot-and-mouth disease and apparently on the point of death, but when I saw them about three months afterwards they seemed perfectly recovered. If such cattle go to slaughter afterwards I believe they still have the germs in their bones. Unless it is prohibited to send the bones of such cattle over here, I do not see how we can eradicate foot-and-mouth disease from Argentine meat. I wish the Minister would be kind enough to look into the question, which is a practical one of very great importance.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitlaw). I would take up what has been said about the slaughter of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. I represent a part of the country which has suffered from the consequences of that foul disease. It has been suggested that it might be possible to coax Argentina by some form of premium in order to pay for any consequences arising from the disease. Although that might recompense the actual sufferers, yet there is much other suffering from the closing of markets and of some of the village shops. There is a wide area of distress from this foul disease.
I shall not talk about Argentina but would put a question to the Minister. Answering a question about birds carrying the disease, he referred to the widespread existence of this disease in Europe. I support what has already been said on the question of an international organisation. We should take note of the way in which locusts were controlled, simply and solely because it was a matter on which everybody was agreed. Locust control has been quite effectively done. Consequently, I see no reason why there could not be a similar approach to this very foul disease, which hurts all nations. Secondly, I ask the Minister if inquiries have been made to find what can be done about great flocks of starlings in relation to this problem.
I trust that in granting money under the Subhead P.9—Meat Inspection—a suggestion may go from the Minister to local authorities that the men appointed shall not stay for a great length of time in


the same place but move from one place to another. After a man has been for a considerable time in one place certain difficulties may arise, or a lot of people may think a difficulty arises, which is not exactly the same as the difficulty arising.
With all matters concerning our farmers and the health of our countryside, the Minister is fully aware that any services that are practical and could effectively make the farmer able to produce at a cheaper price makes a lesser bill here. I suggest that he consult the Minister of Transport to urge him quickly to grant a certain amount of money to build the Tamar Bridge.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I do not think I can quite accept the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) because I do not think it comes within the terms of this debate, but I will deal with some of the important points which have been raised.
I can summarise most of the interventions under one heading; that is, foot-and-mouth. That clearly has been the question in the minds of most hon. Members as all hon. Members are much concerned by the extent to which the disease has been active in recent months and we are very anxious to find some way of overcoming it. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to the valuable work done by the International Committee on Epizootics in which, in fact, we took the initiative. I think we can say that in the work on foot-and-mouth we lead the world. That answers a point made by an hon. Friend. We have very much extended our research institute at Pirbright, a world-famed place for the treatment of foot-and-mouth disease. I had the pleasure of going there not long ago. I would warn hon. Members that if they go there they will have to strip off every item of clothing before entering the affected parts, but if they like to go I would be happy to make the necessary arrangements. The control is very strict, and it is right that it should be. A great deal of good work is being done there.
We have spent a lot of money in expanding the institute, and I think it is money well spent. We are investigating all the problems relating to foot-and-mouth, but a lot of work is related to

vaccines, which we would not consider using in this country because we still believe—I am sure we are right—that the slaughter policy must continue. So long as the slaughter policy continues, and can be successful, it would be wrong to think in terms of any other policy. Many countries which have to use vaccines are envious of us that we can still maintain a slaughter policy. That puts on us a very severe responsibility to try to prevent infection arising from outside sources and that is why hon. Members are so concerned about South American meat imports.
In the South American Republics foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, and one has to pay very close attention to preventing any imports of diseased meat. We maintain in South America two resident veterinary surgeons who examine most carefully the herds as they come to the Frigorificos. They can inspect and reject whole consignments of meat; if they are not satisfied, those consignments are turned back. The Argentine authorities are co-operating with us very closely in this work and I am grateful to them for that. Hon. Members may he interested to know that one of my hon. Friends is at the moment in the Argentine examining for himself that we are doing all we can in this respect.
The other source of infection is mainly through birds from the Continent of Europe. That is a worry all the time. I should like to see whether we could help to make the Continent freer of this very unfortunate disease. The International Committee in Europe to which I referred is doing good work, and we will gladly help it in any way we can, because this is undoubtedly a large source of infection in the southern counties. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) referred to the fact that there had been only one outbreak in Northern Ireland, in 1941, but I would point out that that is probably because we stand as a buffer between Ireland and the Continent and the birds which carry infection from the Continent probably carry it to England rather than to Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: The principal fact is that Northern Ireland has not imported any Argentine meat since that date. The only meat which has been


brought into the country has been from countries which are free from foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Godber: I accept that that is one reason but I was pointing out that that was not the only source and that outbreaks may arise from the other source. I am not saying that some infection does not come from South American meat—undoubtedly it must—but we are seeking as far as we can to prevent it and we are keeping very close watch on the situation. We are naturally concerned about this matter, as are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and we shall certainly do all we possibly can to try to prevent the infection from getting worse. If we can find any way of limiting it more by further restrictions, we shall gladly accept them.
An hon. Member suggested that we should not import any bone or that the bones should be destroyed. This was considered during the war, not from this point of view but with the object of saving shipping space, but it was found that the housewives of this country took a very poor view of meat without bones. It had been boned at the time of despatch, before it was frozen, but it was not popular and the housewives did not seem anxious to buy it.
I want to deal briefly with one or two other points which have been made. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) raised the question of fowl pest. He is very concerned about it, as I can well understand, because there has been great difficulty in the area from which he comes, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks. We are very sorry that we have not been able to stamp it out, but it is very difficult indeed. Over the remainder of the country, generally, we have been able to reduce it very considerably in the last two years, although we have not been able to eradicate it. We are carrying on intensive research all the time, but I have no encouraging information to give the hon. Member at the moment. I am sorry; I wish I had.
One or two hon. Members raised the question of meat inspection, which we have been discussing elsewhere; it was pleasant to come back to it once more. Hon. Members who have been on the Standing Committee on the Slaughterhouses Bill know how thoroughly we are

discussing this matter. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said he would like to encourage the Government. I assure him that the greatest encouragement he could give us would be to help us as speedily as possible to get on to the Statute Book that very valuable Bill. It will help in the inspection of meat. I am sure that he will do his best in that regard.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) raised a point that I must clear up. He said that it was very strange that it should have suddenly emerged, and that I said, when challenged in the Committee on the Slaughterhouses Bill, that I knew nothing about it. What I said was that I could not give him anything in relation to his own authority; of course I knew about the inspection of meat. We have a new Clause dealing with that very point in the Bill that I have just mentioned—

Mr. Dye: It has just come out.

Mr. Godber: It was certainly not put down as a result of the hon. Member's intervention.

Mr. Dye: It was not in the Bill.

Mr. Godber: But the House of Commons was told that we were taking action on this.

Mr. Dye: Two years ago.

Mr. Godber: Yes, but the payments have been made. That is the point, the payments have been made for that particular year, and, in fact, that local authority, like all others, was notified by circular at the time and should have received its proper proportion, in relation to the export of meat, for the 1956–57 year, which comes out of this figure of £95,000.

Mr. Dye: They have not all received it.

Mr. Godber: I should be glad to have details. Naturally, I cannot go further than that now, but they should have received the payments, and I should be grateful to the hon. Member if he would let me know further about it.
The subject of cold stores was brought up. This is really an accounting change and not, as some hon. Members may have feared, a loss. Previously, we have received from the operating company a


figure for rent, less cost of repairs, etc. There is now a change. The rent will not appear here, but a credit, as Exchequer extra receipts, of £190,000 will come in to offset the £100,000 for maintenance so that there is a net gain of £90,000. There will be a trading profit, probably of about £400,000, in addition, from the operation of those stores. As I say, this is an accounting change and not net expenditure. It is quite a good deal, and I should like to pay tribute to the company, which is operating very efficiently on behalf of the Government; we are getting considerable income from it.
The only other point of note that was raised related to Australian meat, and one or two hon. Members referred to this. This, of course, is a hangover from the days when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. They instituted this 15-year agreement on Australian meat. We have had to adapt it to the changing circumstances, but we are honouring it in this way rather than in the bulk purchase way in which it was initiated.
I gather that hon. Members opposite feel that it would have been better had it been continued on bulk purchase, but I think that the cost of doing it in that form would have been considerably higher now had we continued with it. I think that there is no doubt that this is the most efficient way, being saddled with this particular burden—which, of course, we must accept. It is one of the things left over by hon. Members opposite, and I am rather surprised that they called attention to it.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, I think, said that it was included in British agricultural subsidies. As far as we are concerned it appears in our Vote. This is for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We do not state that it is in any way a British agricultural subsidy. We put it under Other Commodity Arrangements. If other people so interpret it, I am sorry, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling attention to the fact, so that it may be known that the payment is for that purpose.
I have tried to deal, as far as I can, with all the points that have been raised, and I hope that the Committee will now see fit to pass this additional sum.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,135,980, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

CLASS VIII. VOTE 12.

Department of Agriculture for Scotland

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,136,143, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Crofters Commission; for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for certain payments in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts and roads in other livestock rearing areas; services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

10.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I think that the Committee would want a very brief explanation of certain of the matters contained in this Estimate, and I will try to cover the ground as quickly as I can. The gross sum required, of course, to meet expenditure is £5,708,258. This is offset to the extent of £572,115 represented by savings under the various Subheads of the Department's affairs which appear in pages 17 and 18. The Supplementary Estimate, therefore, is for a net sum of £5,136,143.
The two largest items are for cereals at £3,451,000 and for milk at £1,197,000. The break-up of the cereal figure might be of interest, as I know it is to one hon. Member. It breaks up into wheat and rye, £382,000, barley £537,000, and oats £2,532,000, of which latter sum £800,000 is due to the Price Review. The rest, of course, is largely accounted for by the fall in world prices, and as this ground was very fully covered in an earlier debate today I do not propose to deal more with it now.
I shall therefore limit myself to giving a very brief résumé of the other Subheads of the Vote on which excesses arise. Under "Administration," Subheads A.1 and A.4, we anticipate a total increase of £92,028. This is almost entirely due to unforeseen pay increases for the staff of the Department, and for the Chairman, members and staff of the Crofters Commission. The small increase for telegraph and telephone services, £2,560, is wholly attributable to increased service charges by the Post Office.
Under the head of "Farming Grants and Subsidies" provision is made for an excess of £45,000 on Subhead B.1 for "Grants for Ploughing up of Grassland." Expenditure under this head is always difficult to estimate and, as it turns out, the weather has a considerable bearing on the outturn. The very favourable weather in the latter part of 1957 probably accounts for the greater acreage ploughed than was expected.
In the case of "Grants for the Improvement of Livestock Rearing Land," the value of work being carried out under approved schemes is increasing and claims for payment of grant are exceeding expectations. To meet these claims a further £65,000 on Subhead B.3 is required. There has been no marked falling off in the intake by way of new schemes during the current year and the upward trend in expenditure seems likely to be maintained, and that, considering the purposes for which it was intended, is not unsatisfactory.
For "Calf Subsidy" and "Subsidy Payments in respect of Hill Cattle," the additional sums required are £200,000 and £152,000, respectively. In these cases, again, the numbers of calves and cattle eligible for subsidy exceeded expectations. That is to some extent a

matter for satisfaction inasmuch as there is now more concentration on beef which is what we are wanting to see. The increase of £7,000 on Subhead B.11 for "Grants for Producers in the Scottish Islands" is due largely to much heavier usage than was contemplated of lime and fertilisers in the islands.
The increased provision of £186,000 on Subhead D.2 for "Flood Emergency Services" is an unfortunate outcome of a second severe storm in the North-East of Scotland in August, 1957. Following severe flooding in that area in 1956, the Government undertook the restoration of the banks and channels of certain of the rivers in Moray, Nairn and adjacent areas. With work still incomplete, this second storm caused further damage to areas still awaiting attention and to restoration works already completed but not consolidated. There was no alternative but to accept responsibility for these additional commitments. On Subhead E.3, "Management and Farming Expenses," the increase of £65,160 is necessary to meet the cost of taking over sheep stocks on subjects acquired by the Forestry Commission. My Department had no information of the Commission's intention to acquire these subjects when its estimates were made. Recoveries will, however, accrue against this expenditure while the subjects are being managed by the Department and as and when the sheep stocks are sold.
There is a quite substantial increase of £151,000 on Subhead F.6, "Other Loans and Grants to Crofters." This is a new scheme, and the estimates were necessarily speculative. The present scheme replaces the old marginal agricultural production scheme. The response of the crofters has exceeded all expectations, particularly as regards cropping grants, and the additional provision is necessary to meet eligible claims.
The last four items for which extra provision is necessary are very minor ones, and I think they speak for themselves, but if there are any questions my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will certainly deal with them when he replies. I think I have covered the main points in the Estimate, and I hope that we shall get it through very shortly.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: It is rather regrettable that this business has to come on at this late hour. I am not blaming our


colleagues south of the Border, because they had some very important matters to discuss and it was perhaps right that they should discuss them, but I think that probably they did not realise that while they were not rationing themselves, they were definitely rationing the Scottish discussion of these matters so severely as practically to render it no discussion at all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary has given us a brief sketch of what has occasioned this extra Estimate. It must come as a shock to the country, in spite of the fact that it carries out agreements concerning the last February Price Review. To see a total of £50 million at a time when even a Government was nearly broken by £50 million must strike the public as something quite drastic. I realise that this is not part of the subject that we can discuss tonight, but a very serious problem is raised when this amount which is so serious in the one case has to be passed, perhaps without proper discussion, in this case.
I gather that the Estimate shows that the policy of the Government of changing over more and more from the production of cereals for home consumption to the production of cereals for cattle feed, which the Minister mentioned in the earlier debate, has certainly been successful. As far as Scotland is concerned, we cannot object to that, because it is leading to the production of better cattle, and Scotland's prosperity depends on quality rather than quantity. During the war Scotland suffered from the other policy of producing meat without any distinction, whereas when we produce meat with distinction in quality Scotland rather comes into its own. On the whole, Scotland will welcome the evidence in the Estimate that this is taking place.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State what criteria govern these extras. Are they subject to the same scrutiny as is applied to other Estimates? For instance, if Estimates come forward from other Departments of State, I understand that they are subject to the most critical scrutiny. The pruning knife is out, and will be out in the future. Is this matter being treated more gently than, for instance, the social services? Are the offspring of cattle to be treated more leniently than offspring of human beings when it comes to education, school meals and matters of that kind?
When these proposals come along we shall make comparisons. While we are not grudging this if it is necessary, we do grudge it if it is not being dealt with in the most efficient manner and if some tenderness is being shown in this Estimate which is not being shown in other directions.

Mr. Maclay: This, of course, is a Supplementary Estimate, and, like everything else, it is scrutinised with the greatest possible care. The right hon. Gentleman will realise from what I said, and from the nature of the Estimate, that many of the demands are unavoidable, the result of weather and other natural processes.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but the growth of the Health Estimates is due to the fall in the value of money; the health services are becoming more efficient, but evidently they are still to be the subject of cuts. The question is, do the same criteria apply to the one as to the other?
Coming to the other side of this subject, that is, the increase to the crofters, the increase in connection with the developing cattle population, and the increase for lime in the Highlands, all those things are highly satisfactory. The use of lime in the Highlands is something we have been trying to encourage for years, in order to increase fertility and productivity in those areas. Therefore, the increased expenditure seems to promise improved agriculture. I am sure that these things come from a growth in well-being. I know houses which were considered slums when I was a boy, and now the increase in well-being among people in those slums is such that the families living there make those houses into homes, with electric light, beautiful furniture, and the rest, even though the buildings were nearly condemned about forty years ago. So also, where people are getting a little more money, they are buying machinery and they are beginning to use more lime on their land. It may be that, with this kind of encouragement, more will be done to rehabilitate the Highlands than is done by all the Special Commissions we set up.
The work of the Crofters Commission is already having results in the progress shown here. The fact that the crofters have been needing more in developing their agriculture and making permanent improvements shows that the whole process is being speeded up to an extent


never expected even by the Government. This is not unwise expenditure; it is expenditure which will bear fruit in the future.
As regards cattle, the whole policy of the 1947 Act, for which, as regards Scotland, I was responsible in the House, was to lay down a programme so that, in a number of years, production from agriculture could be increased by 50 per cent. We have passed that figure now. In the Highlands of Scotland especially, progress towards increasing the numbers and improving the quality of cattle has been most satisfactory. Therefore, even now, when there are, perhaps, a few clouds on the farming horizon, the demand for grants and the opportunities for gaining them show that Scotland is returning to a progressive agricultural system. This state of affairs is peculiarly suitable for Scotland and it is good for the nation. It is a type of agriculture which enriches the soil, whereas continual draining of the soil by cropping sometimes impoverishes it. The production of cattle for meat in this way will make the soil richer and richer as times goes on; the Scottish farmer is very provident and prudent, keeping his asset going.
These things are the result of an investment by the nation in agriculture. Not only farmers but the nation too has, from 1947 onwards, invested considerable capital to assist farmers. That investment has shown results, and our agriculture today is not only stronger but is now producing a quantity of food the absence of which would have caused this country extreme embarrassment in our foreign exchange and balance of payments.
I should have liked to have heard more discussion of one item which the Minister treated as a rather small matter of £3,000 for experimental schemes of peat-cutting and surveys of peat bogs. This may be a small beginning, but it deals with a matter which could have important results. I hope that at some time the Secretary of State will take the opportunity of letting the Committee or the House know what is happening in this experiment. I have been looking forward to paying a visit to see what is going on but I have not yet been able to do so. I am sure that the House of Commons and the people of Scotland would be glad to have news of the experiment.
I will not take up the time of the Committee any longer. The timetable is one of the problems of the House of Commons. Very often Scottish Members are abused for keeping hon. Members in the Chamber late at night. I hope that our English and Welsh colleagues who have now departed to their rest will realise that it is they who have kept the Scots here late at night and that no blame attaches to the loquacity of the Scots, who are at this moment giving a commendable example to their colleagues. We support this Estimate because it is designed to carry out a pledge made to the farmers and is claimed to help a policy which will make for better progress in agriculture. At the same time, we feel that we must be careful to treat every citizen with equal justice and not show tenderness to a certain section and then approach with a ruthless pruning knife others who cannot defend themselves and who do not count for votes at election times.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,136,143, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Crofters Commission; for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for certain payments in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts and roads in other livestock rearing areas; services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March,


1958, the sum of £54,108,813 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVANTS (CAR ALLOWANCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I desire to raise the question of the use of private motor vehicles on Government business by Government employees. This is a practice which I do not condemn altogether. I realise perfectly well that there are many occasions on which the use of a Government employee's own car on official business is an economy and a real saving of expense. There might be occasions when there would be serious loss of official time if the official used public transport. There might be occasions when it is far cheaper for the official to use his own car on the public business than to use an official car.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a rather unnecessary generosity with the taxpayers' money in the case of authorised users of cars in the Government service. I should explain that, as I understand it, there are two categories of authorised user. There is the official who is on the lower rate and who is authorised to use his car when public transport is available. If he is so using his car on official business, then he is paid 2d. a mile. I have no complaint about that rate of payment for the use of the private car on official business. That is merely an estimate of the cost per mile of public transport and bears no relation, of course, to the motoring cost itself.
It is, however, worth bearing in mind that 2d. a mile when one is considering the rate payable to the authorised user on the higher rate. The authorised user on the higher rate is entitled to use his own car, to quote paragraph 41 (a) of the Estacode, when
…public transport is not available or cannot be used without serious (not merely some) loss of official time or that for some other

reason the use of a private motor vehicle is in the public interest.
Can my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the criterion is for
in the public interest
because some Departments construe that very narrowly while others construe it rather widely, to say the least of it?
The paragraph I have quoted also says that it is a matter which has to be decided by a senior officer. There again, I am not clear whether that means an officer senior to the official asking for permission to use the car, or an officer classified as a senior officer and who might give himself authority, if he gave himself a good enough reason which satisfied him that the use of the car was in the public interest.
I quote again from the paragraph:
Whenever practicable each journey, or, in the case of regular travellers, each programme of journeys should be authorised beforehand by a senior officer.
I understand that the main thing is for the official to get on the list of authorised users and, once he is on that list, in some Departments the form of words
whenever practicable
as a proviso for the use of his car is not a very great obstacle.
From common observation, it seems that the more senior an officer, the more easy it is for him to get on the list and it probably follows from that that the more powerful is the car that is being used. That is an important point in considering the rate of payment, because the rate of payment varies with the horsepower of the car. If the official's car is a 10 horse-power car or less, he receives 7¾d. a mile for the first 2,000 miles.
Let us suppose that he has good reason for travelling from London to my constituency and back, a journey of 440 miles; at 7¾d. a mile the taxpayer would pay out to him £14 4s. That is nearly three times as much as the first-class railway fare of £5 0s. 6d. It is fair to say that out of that £14 4s. he would have to pay 50s. in petrol, but even taking that into account, together with fair wear and tear of the car, and so on, it looks to me as if he would make a profit of about £10 out of the trip. In fact, the Department, and therefore the taxpayer, would be better off if the Department had hired him a car from a private car-hire firm which would have cost only


£4 10s. for three days plus 50s. for the petrol, a matter of £7 instead of the £14 4s. which I quoted.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Does the hon. Member know of any case, or has he heard of any case, of a civil servant being authorised to go from London to his constituency and back on official business?

Mr. Page: It does not matter whether it is a journey of 440 miles or of four miles, the same proportions apply.
If he is a little more extravagant in his motoring tastes, and the car is more than 10 horse power, he comes under a still higher rate. Even if it is only one horse power more, such as a Ford Anglia, he gets 9¼d. a mile. So, for the same journey—I will use that distance because I do not think it matters whether the distance is long or short—he would receive £16 11s., well over three times the first-class railway fare. He could have used a hired car for less than half that amount.
It is true that what seems on these figures to be a profitable business does not go on indefinitely. The rate is reduced after the first 2,000 miles and reduced again after 5,000 miles. When a man has done 2,000 miles in one year, the rate is cut down to 6d. a mile for a 10-h.p. car or 7¾d. for a car over 10-h.p. After 5,000 it is 4¾d. a mile for a 10-h.p. car and 6¼d. a mile for a car over 10-h.p. In fairness I must say that if he takes an official passenger, he gets only another ½d. a mile. For the journey which I have mentioned an official who was driving with two official passengers would cost the taxpayer just about the same amount as if the three of them went first-class by train. The taxpayer gains only if there is a driver plus three official passengers.
It seems to me little wonder that the use of one's private car on official business is something of a popular pastime in the Civil Service. I have here the figures for the Post Office. Out of 350,000 employees 4,900 are authorised users, and to them the Post Office pays out £480,000 a year, an average of £100 each tax free per annum. If my hon. and learned Friend looks into the authorised user list in the Engineering Department of the Post Office, it may be that he will find a fruitful field for economies.
In the Ministry of Power 325 officers out of a staff of 1,957, that is, one-sixth of the whole staff of the Ministry, are authorised users. They receive £82,000 a year, an average of £250 a year each, tax-free. In this case, some of the money is recoverable from various sources, so the taxpayer bears only about £60,000. If my figures are correct, it is difficult to believe that about 3¼ million miles have to be travelled each year by the officials of the Ministry of Power under circumstances in which public transport is said not to be available. The Ministry of Supply imposes only £30,000 a year on the taxpayers; 791 of its staff are authorised users.
I take these three Departments, the Post Office, the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Supply, entirely at random. I do not know whether they are different from others in this respect. The figures I have used were given in Parliamentary Answers to Questions. I do not know the figures from the other Departments. They may be better or they may be worse. It would be interesting to know, if my right hon. and learned Friend has the figures, the total amount paid out annually to authorised users for the use of private cars on official business. If the other Departments are running on something like the same lines as those which I have cited, the total sum must be about £3 million or £4 million a year. I should like to know what the Treasury officials pay out to themselves as authorised users during the year.
I am aware that this sort of payment goes on in private industry at even higher rates than I have given, but Government Departments should set an example of economy. The matter requires most careful scrutiny. It is always easy to justify a single journey. Mr. X, an official in some Department, has done his 2,000 miles. He has only a 10-horse power car going at the rate of 6d. per mile. He only needs to travel 30 miles; that is, only 15s. What is 15s.? But when that is multiplied throughout the Departments on many thousands of occasions it adds up to a formidable sum, which does not stand comparison with the figures for a hired private car, let alone for railway fares.
I was anxious to raise this matter now, because in answers to a Parliamentary Question I put to the predecessor of my hon. and learned Friend at the Treasury


I was informed that the matter was under discussion by the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. For that reason I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend may not be able to answer my questions fully, but it makes me anxious.
Perhaps some may say that we must not interfere while the discussions are going on, but this is taxpayers' money. My hon. and learned Friend is spokesman for the taxpayer—or his officials on the Whitley Council are—and I urge him to speak up in protection of the taxpayer. By putting some of the facts on record may have encouraged his officials to say in those discussions that there does not seem to be any justification for expenditure at the present rate for the use of private cars on official business, let alone for any increase in the expenditure. I hope that the discussions are not as to whether there shall be an increase in the rates. I hope that those who are taking part in the discussions will realise the earnest determination of the country in its present mood to press the Government to economise in every possible way, even if, as in this case, it means only a few million pounds a year.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has referred to the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the negotiations which are being conducted between that body and the Government. I am Chairman of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and I am personally concerned with the negotiations which are taking place and which have been in progress for some time.
If I may say so, I very much regret the innuendo and bias in the hon. Member's presentation of the facts. I think that is to be deplored. His use of words such as "popular pastime" in relation to journeys on official business is quite unjustifiable unless he has evidence that civil servants are extravagantly and irresponsibly using private cars for official journeys.
The hon. Member has mentioned three points: first, are there too many civil servants using their own cars on official journeys; secondly, do they use them unnecessarily or uneconomically; and

thirdly, are the mileage allowances paid to them fair or excessive? The first two points are points of administration and not of negotiation. The third point, that of the mileage allowances, obviously raises matters for negotiation between the car users and their employers on whose behalf they use the cars, and that is the only point under negotiation, complicated though it is. As the hon. Member will realise, there are many complications about arriving at a fair and proper figure for a mileage allowance which will cover all the expenses—depreciation, taxation, repairs and renewals, as well as petrol and oil—which are unavoidable in the use of a car.
May I deal with that question for a brief moment? Are the mileage allowances fair or excessive? Certainly they are under review. They are under review at the request of the Staff Side because the cost of petrol has been rising and that must affect the adequacy or otherwise of the mileage allowances. Various proposals have been made from both sides, but I do not wish to dwell on them in detail.
All I will say in this connection is that both sides rely heavily on advice and experience offered freely to them by the Automobile Association, so that our evidence is obtained from an external and independent source, coupled with the practical experience of the car users themselves. I hope that we can bring these discussions to an early end, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is no unnecessary delay in conducting them. They are difficult, especially when proposals are made which will give benefits to some and worsen conditions for others. I need not tell the hon. Member the sort of difficulties which confront negotiators when that sort of proposition is put to them. We are doing our best to reconcile the different interests and to arrive at a fair solution.
Turning to the other two questions, which are of administration, I will not defend for a single moment the unnecessary use of private cars on official business or official cars on official business. I will not defend that any more than I am prepared to defend the use by those in industry of their own cars on firms' business or their firms' cars on their own business in circumstances which would be open to precisely the same criticism.
However, one never gets anywhere defending one set of people by criticising another. We must all be against waste or extravagance, whether it it be in public service or in private industry, but hon. Members, who lay their representations with great sincerity and earnestness before the Inland Revenue authorities on how indispensable their motor car is in the discharge of their Parliamentary business, how much it costs and how much relief they should get, must be very careful before criticising civil servants who use their own cars at other people's direction, and never without their consent.

Mr. Page: If I may say so, I have not myself got a car.

Mr. Houghton: Then the hon. Member is hereby acquitted of any undesirable motive or other delinquency in this connection.
The senior officers who are mentioned are officers senior enough in the administration to judge whether a car is being necessarily and properly used, and authorise the use. If people are put on the list of car users, it is only because their job entitles them to be there. If a senior officer does not authorise the use of a private car on official business, the hire-mileage allowances cannot be claimed—in fact, no allowances can be claimed at all.
This is wholly a matter of administration. I will not suggest that there is no room for tightening up and additional scrutiny—there nearly always is room for additional scrutiny. Bureaucracy has much the same faults everywhere. Indeed, one sees in industry, too, that care is not always taken to economise in these small matters. But I think that the hon. Gentleman should rest assured that in the public service the senior officers are neither stupid, dishonest nor careless in the discharge of their duties. They have responsibilities, and I am sure they discharge them. Nor are civil servants themselves any less worthy than other citizens who are put in a similar position.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will carry away from this debate a somewhat different feeling about this matter, though he is still, I know, waiting for an assurance from his hon. and learned Friend. I apologise for

stepping in between the hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary, but I could not sit here—and I have sat here for a long time waiting for this Adjournment debate—without saying my piece on this difficult subject. I will defend the Civil Service against the hon. Gentleman anywhere, at any time, on this particular issue.

11.13 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): As both my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) have pointed out, this matter is under discussion at present in the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and I confess that I therefore regard this debate as singularly ill-timed. It probably helps that the two hon. Gentlemen have been putting, as it were, the two sides against each other, but I cannot help feeling that it is not in the public interest for me to intervene, considering that the Treasury is at the moment representing the public point of view before the National Whitley Council.
Dealing, not with the point under negotiation but purely with the administration of the present scheme, there are one or two minor things that I can say that, perhaps, would be of help. The Estacode rules to which my hon. Friend has referred apply to the whole of the Civil Service and, obviously, rules must be expressed in terms wide enough to cover a great width of circumstances.
When Estacode refers to the public interest being served by the use of private motor cars, this refers not only to the saving of official time—which is important, and I will come to that later—but also to journeys such as those between points that are poorly served by public transport, those on which secret papers or delicate or bulky equipment have to be carried, and those made by several officers who need to discuss official matters en route.
Those are only a few examples; but the main consideration throughout is the saving of official time and official money. Let me remind my hon. Friend that official time can be worth a great deal. Consider the case of an officer whose salary is £1,500 a year. His time, based on his salary, and ignoring overheads, is worth about £1 an hour, and it does not require the saving of much of his


time to put quite a different complexion on the comparison between motor car and public transport.
My hon. Friend has asked that journeys should be properly authorised, and I was also asked who is a "senior officer". The authorisation comes from an officer charged specifically with this special duty. Of course, the circumstances vary from case to case; they would be different in London from a regional headquarters or a local office but, in each case, the authorisation is given by an officer with this special function; and in no case can an officer authorise his own journeys.
My hon. Friend started to give an example of a journey between his own constituency and Westminster, and he was not altogether correct when he said that distance did not matter. When he cites a long-distance journey, of course the figures are more striking; but a journey such as that would in almost every case have to be made by public transport. There is a special section in the Estacode rules governing long journeys where motor-car travel would be neither the most useful nor the most suitable. Therefore, before motor-car allowance for a round trip between Crosby and Westminster could be authorised, there would have to be some very special reasons put forward.
Therefore, the figures which will appear to be very striking when they appear in my hon. Friend's local newspaper, are in

fact completely academic when used in this discussion tonight. My hon. Friend asked me to give some total estimate. While I cannot give the exact figure, I can say that the suggestion of £3 million to £4 million is far too high. Taking the total mileage of about 50 million a year, the figure, based on the higher rates, would be around only £1 million to £1½ million. The real test is whether that is a saving or whether it would be cheaper overall to make use of public transport.
The Treasury staff of whom my hon. Friend spoke do not have much call to travel around the more inaccessible parts of the Kingdom, so it is only fair to say that they do not provide a really typical example is the present context. But in point of fact, for the 12 months ended last December, 24 Treasury officers were authorised to use their motor cars for official travelling. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the total mileage was 14,500, and the cost £535. When one remembers that the Treasury has the oversight on the spending for the whole Government machine, then I think that one may say that that helps to put this matter into proper perspective. My hon. Friend purported…

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.